English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

The muddle of saffron socialism

Published

on

Modi greets BJP leaders on the occasion of the swearing-in of Adityanath Yogi, the new UP CM

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The Modi plan for New India is based on a guided economy

By Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr

The Congress party, the communists and others assumed that the pro-poor socialist agenda is theirs alone, and it is the weapon to be used against right-wing parties like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). That is why Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi as well as Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury portray the BJP as anti-poor, pro-rich. But Prime Minister Narendra Modi has outflanked the traditional left-of-centre and left parties by appropriating the pro-poor, anti-rich slogan for his party, and going by the electoral success in Uttar Pradesh, it seems that it has worked. Modi has successfully forged socialism with BJP features and turned it into the standard of the party.

Modi has not invented socialism of the right. He has taken the idea from BJP/Jan Sangh ideologue Deen Dayal Upadhyay, from the rhetorical formulations of Swami Vivekananda about the need to serve the poor, apart from Gandhi’s idea of the rich being the custodians of the riches which are to be used for the poor. But he has consistently harped on his commitment and that of his party for the welfare of the poor. He has projected demonetisation as pro-poor-anti-rich, that is illicitly rich, measure. It remains a debatable point whether UP poll verdict is an endorsement of demonetisation as it is being made out to be in a knee-jerk fashion. The intent of the UP voter in voting overwhelmingly in favour of BJP is quite complex and it cannot be inferred as an approval of the nearly three-year Modi government at the Centre.  Demonetisation remains a wrong economic decision and an electoral victory cannot make it right. All that one can say about demonetisation and the UP electoral outcome, if there is any connection between the two, is that bad economics makes for good politics. Modi’s jibes against the critics of the measure will remain just that, jibes, and they do not alter unsoundness of the measure. As a matter of fact, it is the true measure of populism that it seeks vindication not in terms of its own inherent logic but in extraneous factor.

It will be difficult to label BJP as a Hindutva party alone any more, though it remains a Hindutva party in terms of realpolitik. It has become a populist party, and it is right-wing populism at that because it combines nationalism with egalitarianism of a kind. The dreaded word, national socialism, has to be used despite its negative connotations derived from the German experience with the Nazis, the National Socialists. Speaking at the victory celebration do at the party headquarters in New Delhi on Sunday (March 12) evening, Modi put forward a convoluted argument. He declared that the poor are not looking for sops but they want the state to provide them the opportunity to make their own fortune. The converse of the theorem is that once the poor are able to get on and get off on their own, the middle class need not carry the burden of national well-being. The underlying theme is quite evident: the tax-paying middle class is carrying the weight of welfare measures and subsidies.

If this is the rhetorical flourish of the prime minister, the thinking of Modi government at the policy level is to create a welfare state, which is administered by private entrepreneurs and not by the state, and which is supported by increased tax collections. The prime minister maintains a conspicuous silence on the tax booty, while Finance Minister Arun Jaitley is clearly looking for higher tax collections in order to finance welfare measures. The plan will come under stress if the economy does not grow, and tax buoyancy will disappear. The non-performing assets (NPAs) of the public sector banks are a sign of the stress in the financial system. Apart from the evils of crony capitalism that is behind part of the NPA story, there are issues of how the financial system is to bankroll the engines of economic growth. It can be seen in the last three years that public investment is carrying the burden of keeping the growth rate ticking, and there is no sign of private investment picking up. And then there are major problems involved in empowering the poor through educating them, skilling them, and by prodding investment that will create jobs for them. The economy is not at the beck and call of a leader or his party. And even the poor have their own ideas as to how they want to get ahead in their lives. They do not want a paternalist state to make them walk on the straight and narrow path of what the policy-makers believe to be the right path.  It is on the rocks of unbound reality that the best laid plans of the politicians break.

Modi’s vision of New India envisages a national economy managed by the state through private sector that will provide full employment. It is a socialist vision of an indirectly planned economy. It poses a challenge to those who hated the Congress variant of socialism, and despite the market meltdown of the last decade have not lost faith in the ideal of a free market economy. One of the reasons that pro-free marketers supported the BJP was their hope that the right-wing party will get rid the country of the state-controlled economy spawned by the Nehruvian socialists. They will now have to come to terms with the Modi plan of making the free market a handmaid of national power and pride and for serving the needs of the poor. Even if they now decide to become the foot soldiers of BJP’s nationalist socialism, it does not alter the ominous truth established by Friedrich Hayek in his 1944 book, Road to Serfdom. Socialism of any kind comes at the price of liberty.

If socialism as such has turned out to be a failed system, and it can now be argued that Nehruvian socialism could not have succeeded with the best of intentions, then it is inevitable that the epitaph for saffron socialism would have to be written as well, and that sooner than later. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Rahul Gandhi, Centre clash over Ladakh deepens as eight Congress MPs suspended

The Lok Sabha saw repeated disruptions after Rahul Gandhi was denied permission to speak on the Ladakh issue, leading to protests and the suspension of eight Congress MPs.

Published

on

Chaos engulfed the Lok Sabha on Tuesday as tensions between the opposition and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party intensified over Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s attempt to raise the issue of the India-China military standoff in Ladakh. The disruption eventually led to the suspension of eight Congress MPs for the remainder of the parliamentary session.

The confrontation unfolded after the Leader of the Opposition tried, for the second consecutive day, to read out excerpts from an unpublished book by former Army chief General M.M. Naravane that refer to the 2020 Ladakh crisis. The Speaker denied permission, citing procedural rules, triggering protests from opposition members.

Several MPs protested by refusing to speak when called upon, expressing solidarity with Gandhi. The uproar forced repeated adjournments of the House and, according to reports, involved members throwing pieces of paper towards the Chair.

Following the disorder, eight Congress MPs — including Hibi Eden, Amarinder Raja Warring and Manickam Tagor — were suspended. Warring later questioned the action, saying the protests were in response to Gandhi being denied the opportunity to speak despite having authenticated the document and submitted it to the House.

The BJP strongly criticised the Congress leadership. Party MP Anurag Thakur accused Rahul Gandhi of undermining Parliament and insulting the armed forces, alleging that the opposition was attempting to distract from recent government actions, including the presentation of the Union Budget. He also said the BJP would move a formal complaint seeking strict action against the suspended MPs.

Outside Parliament, Gandhi accused the ruling party of trying to silence him, saying he was prevented from speaking on the sensitive issue of the India-China border. He argued that he had followed procedure by authenticating the content he wished to quote but was still denied permission.

What happened a day earlier

On Monday, the Speaker had also disallowed Gandhi from reading the excerpts, with senior ministers countering his remarks during the debate. Government sources later maintained that the Congress leader violated House rules by attempting to introduce unpublished material into the official record without prior approval.

When proceedings resumed on Tuesday, Gandhi again raised the matter, insisting that the information had been authenticated. As the Speaker moved on to other members, two opposition MPs from the Samajwadi Party and Trinamool Congress declined to speak, signalling their support for him.

Rahul Gandhi targets India-US trade deal

Separately, Gandhi also criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi over what he described as a lack of transparency surrounding the India-US trade deal. He questioned how negotiations that had reportedly remained unresolved for months were concluded overnight and alleged that the agreement compromised the interests of Indian farmers, particularly in agriculture and dairy.

Government sources, however, rejected these claims, stating that sensitive sectors would remain protected and that the deal does not undermine farmers’ interests. They said contentious issues, including market access, had been carefully handled.

The opposition has demanded full disclosure of the terms of the agreement, even as both sides continue to trade sharp political accusations inside and outside Parliament.

Continue Reading

India News

Mamata Banerjee alleges mass voter deletions in Bengal, targets Election Commission

Mamata Banerjee has accused the Election Commission of deleting thousands of voter names without due process, raising questions over the timing of the exercise ahead of elections.

Published

on

Mamata Banerjee

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Monday intensified her attack on the Election Commission over voter roll revisions, alleging that a large number of names have been deleted without due process as the state heads towards elections.

Addressing party workers, Banerjee claimed that 40,000 voters’ names were removed from her constituency alone, alleging that the deletions were carried out unilaterally and without giving voters a chance to be heard.

“In my constituency they have deleted 40,000 voters’ names unilaterally… Even a murderer gets a chance to defend himself,” she said.

Allegations against election officials

The chief minister directly accused an election official, alleging political bias and irregular conduct in the revision process. She claimed that voter names were being removed while officials sat in Election Commission offices, calling the process illegal.

“They cannot do it, it is illegal. 58 lakh names have been unilaterally deleted,” she said, echoing claims earlier made by Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee.

Banerjee also alleged that individuals described as “micro-observers” had been appointed illegally, claiming they had no role under the Representation of the People Act and were linked to the BJP.

‘Alive but marked dead’

In a dramatic moment during her address, the chief minister asked those present who had been marked as deceased in the voter lists to raise their hands.

“See, they are alive but as per the Election Commission they are dead,” she said.

She further alleged that names were being deleted under the category of “logical discrepancy,” adding that even noted economist and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen had earlier been questioned regarding the age of his mother.

Questions over timing of voter roll exercise

While stating that she did not oppose the Special Intensive Revision process in principle, Banerjee questioned the timing of the exercise.

“I have no problem with SIR, but why do it on the eve of elections? Why not after elections?” she asked.

Reiterating confidence in her party’s organisational strength, the chief minister said she was prepared to fight the issue politically and democratically.

Continue Reading

India News

Supreme Court raps Meta over WhatsApp privacy policy

The Supreme Court warned Meta that it would not tolerate any compromise of citizens’ privacy while hearing a case related to WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy and a CCI penalty.

Published

on

WhatsApp

The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered strong observations against Meta, the parent company of WhatsApp, over the messaging platform’s 2021 privacy policy, warning that it would not tolerate any compromise of citizens’ privacy.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya said the court would not allow the sharing of user data in a manner that exploits Indians, remarking that privacy protections under the Constitution must be followed. “You can’t play with privacy… we will not allow you to share a single digit of our data,” the Chief Justice said during the hearing.

The matter relates to a plea challenging the law tribunal’s decision that upheld a ₹213 crore penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) on WhatsApp, while also permitting certain data-sharing practices for advertising purposes.

Court questions accessibility of privacy policy

During the hearing, the court raised concerns about whether WhatsApp’s privacy policy could realistically be understood by large sections of the population, particularly those who are poor or not formally educated.

The bench questioned if users such as roadside vendors, rural residents, or people who do not speak English would be able to comprehend the policy’s terms. It also expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of opt-out clauses, stating that even legally trained individuals find such policies difficult to understand.

Describing the alleged data practices as potentially exploitative, the court said it would not allow private information to be taken without genuine and informed consent from users.

The Chief Justice also cited a personal example, suggesting that users often begin seeing advertisements shortly after exchanging sensitive messages on WhatsApp, such as medical conversations, raising questions about how user data is being utilised.

Arguments from government and Meta

Appearing for the government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta criticised WhatsApp’s data-sharing practices, calling them exploitative and commercially driven. In response, the Chief Justice said that if companies cannot operate in line with constitutional values, they should not do business in India.

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Akhil Sibal, appearing for Meta and WhatsApp, countered the allegations by asserting that all WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted and that the company cannot read message content.

Background of the case

In November 2024, the CCI ruled against WhatsApp over its 2021 privacy policy, holding that the company had abused its dominant market position by effectively forcing users to accept the updated terms.

The watchdog objected to WhatsApp making continued access to messaging services conditional on permitting data-sharing with other Meta platforms, leading to the imposition of a ₹213 crore fine. Meta has deposited the penalty.

In January 2025, Meta and WhatsApp challenged the CCI order. Later, in November 2025, the law tribunal lifted a five-year restriction on data-sharing while maintaining the financial penalty.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com