 So good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining this lecture of opportunity. My name is Hyatt Albee. We are very privileged to have Dr. Ashok Swain, and I'll read very briefly from his bio, and then I'll turn it over to him, and I will be advancing his slides for him as he speaks. He does want a robust Q&A, so be prepared to ask him some good questions. Ashok Swain is a professor and head of department of the Department of Peace and Conflict Research. He is the UNESCO Chair on International Water Cooperation and the Director of Research School of International Water Cooperation at Uppsala University in Sweden. He is also the founding editor-in-chief of Environment and Security Journal. Dr. Swain is a renowned and outspoken activist for democracy and human rights in India, and his talk today is entitled, In India, Democracy is in its Deathbed. Please welcome Dr. Ashok Swain. The floor is yours, sir. Thank you for inviting me. It's a pleasure speaking to the class here. I don't know how I will be starting it because the reason is, as my introduction goes, I'm an academic. My research is all sorts of peace and conflict, climate, water, you name it, but I have also a side which looks at the democracy and development in different parts of the world. These days, I don't really lecture on India, neither here nor to Indian universities, because frankly, I can't even talk to the Indian universities. That's why it took me some slide to when I was asked to give this lecture, try to put it something together. India is a vast country. It will be lots of issues to cover, but I think I will try to be as precise as possible and then would very much like to get the question and answer. I mean, because I think it will be too boring to listen to my voice for a long time. It's not going to be nice actually. We can move to the next slide, please. Thank you. I think India, as a country, I think it's a very difficult to get a grasp of it for anyone. Even you are born and brought up in that country because it's so vast, so different from not only ethnically, not only culturally, religiously, whatever you name it. Regionally, all it's a language, linguistically, it's a very different country. So I think what happens, we usually try to look a certain aspects of it and make our mind or make our impression of the country on that basis. I was actually yesterday giving a talk to several of the academics, those who are kind of, I won't say rebel, they are somehow opposing the autocratic regimes in their, they're all diaspora academic, their autocratic regimes in their country back home. And I think there are several of them from India were there. And I think it's interesting to see that what sort of aspects they look at it. So it's a very different from, I mean, if you ask an academic also, even doing research on democracy, then they will focus on a particular part of it. And that becomes challenging. So that's why I'm saying that, you know, I will not able to cover everything, I will try to cover some, but we will take up whatever in the question answer session, if there is anything, I will be happy to explain if I can. India has been a for seven decades, the world's most populous democracy or words. I mean, India got independence in 1947. Since then, there has been always a peaceful transition of power through elections. There have been a kind of 20 odd months in from 1975 to 77. There was an emergency, internal emergency was declared by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. And that was the time many of the, I mean, many of the civil rights, political rights were taken out by the government that time. So that is a kind of a black mark on Indian democracy in that period. But I think overall, but of course, the same person brought back the election and the election she was defeated. So then it, the system ran as it was before. Of course, there was a one party was in power for a long period of time, that's Congress party. And that was the time, of course, initial period. The democracy was doing well in the beginning. And then one, when one party remains in power, then there was a certain kind of power control took place. So many of the institutions, organizations were not exactly developed the way in the beginning under the Nehru would started. But then what happened in the last three decades or more than three decades, particularly since mid 80s, so it happened or the, you know, mid 80s and it is it was more of a coalition government. So the no party was in power. So there was a one or single party till 2013 or 14. And so that was a period when you could see that democracy to a large extent thrived in the country. And this is where, because there was of course, there will be a lot of accommodation, lots of discussions because it's a coalition politics, but you could see the democracy in action in many ways. During that period also, that was India became a kind of economic growth took place. People usually say that, you know, you need a country, a concentrated power or like a autocracy that to do well in democracies, particular death things from the East Asia, we got that kind of ideas. But when and then Indian growth was also being mocked as a Hindu rate of growth, because it was a very little economic growth taking place in the economic growth terms come back to this discussion, whether the economic growth were materializing in bringing the, you know, uplifting the poverty proper people from those who are in the poverty line. But the overall economic growth was marginal. But we, the India got into a very remarkable economic growth starting from the 2003, 2004, and it continued at least 2015, 16. And the idea and in that time, there was this idea that with the democracy versus autocracy, which are in the developing countries, which are good for the economic growth. But that is the time India's economic growth really brought a challenge for that Chinese economic growth, that you can have a democracy, you can have this coalition governments, you can really do fight among yourself, electorally, politically always, you know, if when you live in the United States, you know very well that how the democracy functions, it might look very disordered, it might look very much of kind of a way that it's probably not working. But when you look at the economic return, economic growth return, that really did much better than even China sometimes. So it is somehow that time, the political scientist got into this debate that whether, you know, we have to revise that whether you need an autocracy to autocratic power or a strong leader to really go for economic growth. You can also with the coalition government, you can really do it. However, since 2014, there has been growing concern that about the India state of democracy. What happened in 2014? It's the Hindu nationalist party, BJP came to power. Of course, they were also in power from 1998 to 2004, six years that time. But they were not exactly, had got the majority in the parliament to grow in the country. So that time, Otto A.B. Batchpay was the prime minister. Of course, there have been few things here and there, it happened. But I think it was not exactly like the kind of threat into Indian democracy, which came in from 2014. Because the government which under Narendra Modi came to power with the clear cut majority, more than and that is where the party in the Hindu nationalist party which took a page and I will say why it is the challenge. Of course, the key challenges has been seen for the last nine and a half years, the independence of the judiciary. You need these key institutions to work. When we compare with the United States, of course, United States, there have been the politicization of the, you have probably in the Supreme Court, but we have a very different in India. The India actually, the judiciary in a different level, I mean, of course, it's much more affected from the lower level to the higher level everywhere. The judiciary has been either used with all sorts of power or kind of carrot and sticks. Using that, the judiciary has the independence has been quite marginalized. Election commission, which was actually extremely important. India used to be, I remember when your Florida issue came in the George W. Bush was being elected as the president for the first time. That time, Indians were really saying that we can really show how the United States to hold elections. The India's election commission was absolutely a fantastic institutions which he and India had developed. But that institutions has been going through a very serious crisis because it's not, it's somehow, it's a power is being taken, it's a people are being put in there. Those who really will listen to the government, the who will select. That is also a big thing going on when the India's Supreme Court Chief Justice wanted to be a member, but that is being taken away. Those kind of things leads to a huge popular protest in Israel. I mean, if you remember when you take away the power from the judiciary, the Israeli has been seeing before this, whatever happened on 7th of October before that 40 weeks of protest, but India doesn't really, they don't care. This doesn't happen much. Then the military also under scrutiny. Military is a professional military India had and it still has to a large extent. But the military appointment has been taken for some time in a different ways. The kind of way the military is being used for political purposes, that really creates some kind of question mark, how the military is really keeping that kind of professionalism or non-partisan character anymore or not. Whether up in, of course, overall it looks still is working. But I think there has been a serious doubts about how the military will function if there is a certain kind of situation comes in like what happened in the United States in 2020. Yeah, the last one, the Trump election took place. So this is the kind of idea that we do have. Decline in the protection of civil liberties. Many people have been arrested. Many people have been arrested on various issues. They are not being given the many means. Those who are activists, academics, you name it. And this has been a kind of ways that to give any sort of restrictions that's who want to raise a voice. Those who want to raise a voice for any kind of issues, which is not exactly going the way what the government wants. I do have a long list I can come in and you can, you know, those are the things which is the civil liberties are extremely in India. Let me put it this way. India was never a perfect democracy, never ever. But the question is there is there was a threshold where you can operate and we could operate. And that has broken for a long time back now. Increasing restriction on freedom of expression and the press. It is it is almost impossible for whatever I'm saying here, because if I would have been employed in an Indian university to say that to you, that is not possible at all. And there has been also all sort of is not only academic, it's anyone who is giving coming up with any kind of opinion, which goes against the government goes against the regime, you will be considered an anti Indian or anti national, you name it, I mean, or a Pakistani supporter or a Chinese supporter, you name it. There are different ways they can put you in that bracket. It will be very difficult to get out of that bracket by yourself. Then there is a electoral manipulation and polarization is taking place. I was mentioning about the election commission election commission. There has been question mark about how the election being heard, how the elections being manipulated. Even recently, a professor of a private university brought out a paper which was saying that how the last election, the government or the party in power tried to or manipulated the election. And that person, I mean, there was a huge black backlash by the regime against that professor, the professor has to leave that university, all kinds of things happen. But the polarization easy way, you know, when once you in the election time, if you openly or the political leaders go out openly and polarize the electorates, then the situation becomes very, very different, including the prime minister goes to the election, they all go to the election campaigns, campaign that's, you know, naming the minorities, naming the Muslims and all the kind of things when you polarize on that basis, it becomes into way that it's very difficult for other political parties, centralized parties to really compete you in that process. The three things, on three things, when the Indian elections, if the election campaign is being built and opposition is regular centralized opposition try to challenge, that will be very difficult when it comes to issue of Muslims, issue of Kashmir and issue of Pakistan. On these three issues, the Hindu nationalist government will have always an upper hand. And if the polarization takes place on these three issues, it will be almost impossible for an opposition to outsmart or outclass this up or the present region. We can move to the second thing. India, I think we need to look at it though, again, go back to 1947. It's the Indian democracy, you or the when India became independence. India's independence come with a very peaceful struggle under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. Congress was leading that struggle. In that freedom struggle, it was more of a, of course, we know that was when the India got independence in 1947, one of the very first countries, first colonies to get independence and got the independence waging a struggle peacefully, most of the peaceful freedom struggle. That even continues to inspire people, leaders in different parts of the world from Martin Luther King to South Africa to even Kosovo, you name it, there have been different places still Gandhi really influences that on that freedom struggle. But the country, when it got independence, it also was partitioned. A country part of, you know, when it was to become Pakistan, connecting now the present Bangladesh was East Pakistan and the West Pakistan with the present Pakistan. When they were formed, it was formed on the basis of giving a homeland to the Muslims, Muslims were, so that was a country, but then India wanted to or India, one of the Gandhi and Nehru, they wanted to remain a country as a secular country. It was a kind of way that also there was a large number of Muslims still live in India, but there are six, there are Christians, there are a number of other minorities were living in India. India's Hinduism is also very fragmented, different into the different parts of the region. So that way it was a political decision. It was a moral decision. It was a right decision to make a country as a secular country. And that's what also brought the country to able to survive the democracy so long. So Gandhi was killed by this Hindu nationalist, one of the Hindu nationalist militant in the 1948 January itself. So since then the Nehru became the primary leader of the party until his death in 1964. So I think he was, to my mind, I find Nehru was probably the most important leader for the survival of India as a democracy and a secular country till that this time. Because initially at that period, he was a democrat by heart. So it was many things which you took into the decision. He built these institutions at that time, which really helped the country to, because the country, there have been a number of question mark when India became a country 1947. I mean, of course, you can go back to this kind of cultural thing, but India has never been into this shape as a country under one rule. We must realize that India is a new country. It might, it is old civilization, but that's a very different country. But India was a new country established in 1947. India was a country with a project brought together from the different parts of the region put together under one administration, when even the British has left 500 plus princely states or the kingdoms they were within the country. They also were merged into the, I mean, of course, we know the other kinds of problems associated with some of the issues. But I think what happened the country, there have been many Indian experts abroad and within India also had question whether India will survive or not. India not only survived India fight on because it was a democracy and it was a secular country. Though it was from the very beginning, the constitution was a very secular constitution, but they put in the 1976, I was mentioning at the time of emergency where those period 1975-77 under that emergency period, there was a constitutional amendment. And in that constitutional amendment, they specifically put the secular in the preamble of the constitution. It's just the secularism is a major part of the India's democratic character. And I think we must realize that without secularism, it will be extremely difficult to imagine India remaining as a country of this unit of this character and this type in the long run. And I can come back to this answer or questions if you have later on, because it needs to be put into the context and put it in a number of examples. Then there have been, you see, we also need to look at the Hindu nationalism, which I was talking about the government now, which is since in 2014. And there was a six years period from 98 to 2020. But before that, very few people were touching them as such. I mean, there were in some times steps like nobody wanted to deal with them directly. Of course, there was opposition, non-congress opposition was dealing them with them, but they were not exactly considered the politically, they were almost politically untouchable before 98. Let me put that way. But this Hindu nationalism is not a new thing, because this one, we need to look at it when it was established. It was established 1925, RSS, when India was under Congress, sorry, under the British colonial rule. This is the exactly the time Muslim Brotherhood was also created in Egypt. And also, we need to realize that this Hindu nationalist organization in 1925, it was not supporting Congress or the freedom struggle. It was primarily opposing it or siding with the British. So there have been a number of ways, number of scholars might compare this, how the Muslim Brotherhood and the RSS creation in, they have similarity and what are the roles in their creation, the colonial power had played to divide the country's oppositions, to divide the independence movement. So I think this is something again another topic, but that is a history. And of course, we need to learn from the history, but we should see how it is also. And we also need to realize that the same Hindu nationalists, those who are in power, those who are forcing people to sing India's national anthem all the time, carry the national flag all the time, they didn't accept the Indian national song, they didn't accept the Indian national flag, they didn't accept the India's national constitutions when it came in the 1940s, 1950s, even they accepted only for the first time this RSS headquarters got into, they were forced to raise the India's national flag only 20 years back. So I think it's somehow we need to realize it's a kind of historically how they have played, how the different roles they have played. Then Hindu nationalism came to power, of course it was in the 1977 when this emergency, after the emergency, there was a two and a half years of a centrist party came to power, though the Hindu nationalists came to power, a part of that, but they were merged into a particular party, which is centrist party. So they were not exactly a separate party that time, or separate party of that government, which was under power in power for those three years, but since 98 to 2004, that six years, they could create a coalition party, but the significant turning point really came when this Modi astounding election victory in 2014 with an absolute majority. And we need to know who is Modi also, I hope you know that because Modi was also before he became prime minister in 2014, for more than 10 years, he was not allowed to enter to United States, Canada and Europe, he was not given visa to come here. Why he was not being given visa? Because he was being considered as a person somehow responsible or at least under his watch, there was anti-Muslim riot took place in Gujarat when he was the chief minister. And that is the reason which has been a kind of, at least in North America and Europe, European, you use countries had blocked his entry or his visit to this part of the world. So I think this is and suddenly when he became the prime minister in 2014, we forgot those things. And we have a very good habit of forgetting these kind of things of these kind of people because of our interest. And again, this, if you probably know that what happened recently, a BBC documentary came in about the 2000 anti-Muslim riot in Gujarat where 2000 Muslims were butchered. And that was even not allowed to be, this was banned in India, all sorts of things happened, those who even saw it in the university campuses, they were prostituted, some people put in jail. Even they also went into the BBC office, read at the BBC office. That's another issue. That's how the freedom of press I was talking about. So what has happened when he became the prime minister? Gradually, there was an observable shift towards majoritarian politics, but it was also covered within this pseudo-nationalism. Why I call pseudo-nationalism? I think mentioned before that this was happening, that they had their, these are the same people, those who are not accepted the flag. These are the same people who have not accepted the constitution. These are the same people, those who have not accepted the national song, but now they want people to every time to say this. And if you don't, then you are, I mean, you cannot force people to do anything because if it is a democracy. So I think this is somehow all these things came up. And this is not, as I said, it is not exactly love for your country, that you are a patriot. The nationalism is absolutely geared towards you hate another country. And that's Pakistan you have to hate. If you have to, and the Pakistan hate Pakistan has also come with the hate, your minority, your hate, your Muslims. So it's a very close connection that how they are really, that's why I call it the pseudo-nationalism, they're hiding it. And that's through it, because that's why it's the majoritarian politics is being that it's supposed to be a Hindu country. It's a Hindu identity. It's a Hindu cultural pride. That's makes the country 200 million Muslims, 25 million Christians, 25 million Sikhs. I mean, of course, in that Hindus, the Hindus are not a kind of very specific category because there are the Dalits, we call it schedule castes who are untouchables, who belong to the caste system. There are also indigenous people. There is all these things which, and then there is also the upper caste than the other backward classes. So there are all sorts of divisions are there, but they wanted to create a Hindus as a one unit and living our sides this and creating a identity with a cultural pride. And it's also very interesting. I mean, the interesting thing is that you how you really create a pride, how you really create some things which needs to be created. Of course, you manipulate the history. There has been a lots of new history is being written. It's always history is always a political project. I know that, but the history has to be history and writes the history, not any anyone else, not the politicians write the history is the politic. It's a political project, but the politicians are writing the history, which are to somehow putting the blames for everything, which is the Mughal rule, which was and then they forget that the Mughal rule India was the richest country. So it's all these things, which are all sorts of blame game goes on. And the new history is being built. And the cultural they also creating new heroes, which were not probably existing or the history doesn't really accept it, but they have they are creating this. So the it's a history is reinterpreted and rewritten to demonize Muslims, mostly and also Christians. So I think I think we need to realize that it's a it's a vicious project where you teach the young students the kind of history, which is being reflected in the, you know, and it's a long term challenge, which is coming to the country, which is probably will be a very devastating, much more than anything else, whether the present regime stays or the gets it defeated, or if it gets defeated in election, whether it leaves the power, but the kind of education is being given to the students given to the people are particularly the young generation, which is the way it is being trained. That's create a kind of challenge, which I don't know how long that is going to be really viable. Then, though, I think it's a democracy and secularism, we, it's a minority rights is a very crucial part in any democracy. Of course, otherwise it's become majoritarian authoritarianism. If the minority rights are not protected, if minority rights are not respected, the democracy is not democracy, it becomes a majoritarian autocracy. And I think it's we must realize that it is very important the minority rights are protected any democracy, otherwise this will not remain a democracy. And that's the way the populist nationalist all over the world do have this kind of majoritarian and type of that we have the 50.1 percent votes 50.1 percent vote and we can change the law and we can and that's the easy way also to marginalize minorities and gets the majority vote. And I think it's we need to realize that the India with this Muslims, as I was mentioning 200 million more Christians, six, 25 or million, 30 millions and your name and all sorts of religion exist in that country. That is unfortunately, there is a huge religious discrimination taking place. It is whenever anyone asks me that, you know, it's very easy to say, as you can say, there is always people say, what is that religious discrimination? Even I live in a country in Sweden, it's always that, you know, what is Sweden is everything a perfect country. There was a here, I think he was from Moroccan origin, author wrote sometime back that you just become one day wear my skin and go to the outside and you realize what kind of discrimination exist. You one day wear a skull cap and walking around in Delhi and you would realize what kind of discrimination exist. You don't need to because it's very easy for those who have, you know, come from the majoritarian majority background. We always don't really see that the day to the discrimination which carry on everywhere, including this country in Sweden. But when it becomes politically, institutionally at the state level, not only approved but encouraged, when everything goes into that you are proud to be a majoritarianist ideas, then of course, it doesn't matter. You do it because you also get you not only anybody you look down upon, you will get political benefit for it. There has been escalation and head crimes and violence against minority groups. It has increased dramatically. Of course, depends on which state you go because India is a federal state country. It depends on the which state. Of course, you won't see that in a large part of Southern India or part of Eastern India. But if you go to Northern India, then you will find that what kind of violence and head crimes exist. And then there is a minority rights, including the freedom to practice one's religion without fear. There are all these things which are happening. I mean, if I carry on, go on, this will take five days minimum. It is impossible now for the Muslims in many states even to openly pray, forget about anything else. If any Muslim man dares to fall in love, whether you call in fall in love, that's an Indian term, but whether if he wants to have a partner with a Hindu partner, probably he is most likely to be lynched any time. So I think we need to realize that this is a country which is where not very, one or two or three or five million Muslims live. It's 200 million more Muslim lives. It's not only that. It's also we see that how much, it's not only Muslims. What is happening in Manipur? It's a state which is also recently has been in for the last five months. It has been a huge in one day in 36 hours in May last this year, almost 300 churches were born. These are Christians. Many of the Christians, places of worship, whatever is you name it in UP, Uttar Pradesh, or Chhattisgarh, or even the state I come from, Odisha. I mean, there have been also when there have been the Christian areas pockets, you will see also attack against Christians. So it's a somehow it is it's happening. Then there has been also the controversy. It's not only happening at the, you know, beyond what you call it in like this, it is also happening, changing the rules, changing the laws. It is not only happening because the people have been getting the free hand. It's not because people or the political party supporters doing it. It's the also party in power changing the law. There is a controversial change to the citizenship law, which has been that if anyone comes from the in South Asia to come to come to come to India, ask for the refugee status. It's only everyone is allowed except a Muslim. And that's come kind of, I mean, it's if you are a secular country, you don't do that. But also the Muslims, even if you look at Pakistan, there are a large number of Muslims or Afghans, they are also discriminated, isn't it? So why you make those kind of rules? Then there is also a citizenship, which started in Assam, that who is a citizen, who is a not, because there have been it's a long issue that people are blaming that the people came from Bangladesh. There was a, but when it came, there was also a threat that it will be done or at least the Home Minister came and saying that it will be done all over the country. Of course, it has stopped now. So those kinds of things that if it will be all over the country in India, even I don't have, I was when I was born, there was no paper exist. How shall I prove that I am from India? There was no paper in my village, there was no hospital where I will get my birth certificate. So removal of the, then the, then the, you know, the, I was mentioning there have been some princely states, then the princely states were became part of India, that the Kashmir was, if I want to go on Kashmir, then to begin a long story. But let's put this way. Kashmir has been, when Kashmir being a Muslim majority province was a large part of Kashmir was kept in India. It was on the promise that it will be an auto remain certain with some sort of autonomy. And that auto autonomy was given within the Article 370. After Modi came to power, came back to power or the return, sorry, returned the power in the bigger majority in 2019 election, he went on. He just, without any discussions, without any discussion in the parliament or any way to having a national or even involving the Kashmiri people, he removed the Article 370. And since then Kashmir remain is in a, of course, you know, you, you, you all, all store up storage, but we also thought that the Gaza was also peaceful for some time. Big ban and cow has vigilantism. You know, there is a very strange or something very is everybody thinks that Indians are vegetarians or Hindus are vegetarians. That's not true. 80% Indians are, I mean, they do eat what you call it meat or fish or something. So it's an egg. So it's not the Indians are that every Indian is a vegetarian. And that's a kind of language has been used by particularly upper class, upper caste Hindus and to show that the rest of the India is that. But of course, there is a, there is a beef. It's not only the Muslims and Christians used to eat beef. There have been also a number of sections of Hindus. They also used to be, but the beef has been an issue in many states that we've been has been taking place before even the Modi came to power. But it was not given that the vigilante group were not given the open freedom that they can really lynch Muslims. You won't believe that the people are going to their Muslim houses with police and finding out if their how freeze has the beef or not taking the freeze out with the outside for the forensic test. That's what happening nowadays. People are being lynched to not only Muslims, mostly Muslims, but of course, Christians, of course, indigenous people, they have been forced to and they're being lynched by the this kind of mob. And there have been also instances, those who are lynching the minorities, they are giving the political patronage. They even sometimes contesting election and winning it. Then attack against Christians, Christians, there has been a huge increase, particularly during a Christmas Easter and Christmas. I always read that, you know, it's, it's lots of things happens that time. It's unfortunately the report is very minimal because most of the focus has been on the violence against Muslims, but the Christian community gets quite affected. Sorry, you wanted to say something? Someone was coughing. Go ahead. Then the Sikh community, I think you probably aware of what is happening now between Canada and India. The Canadian Prime Minister has accused India's agencies of committing a political assassination in Canadian soil to a Sikh separatist leader, which is absolutely, it was never been there before. It was always the Indian agencies, intelligence agencies were accused or the Pakistan India usually accused each other. Nobody takes them seriously, but that's what for the first time a country which is the waste and particularly Canada has accused it officially that this is what happened. Why this happened? What has happened? I mean, this is again, though, if we go back to this Sikh separatism or what do they call it? The Kallistan State Movement is another big issue. It has been not new. It has come from the 80s going on quite a big way, but it went down quite drastically after a Sikh weekend Prime Minister from 2004 to 2014. After that, I think it has been again emerged particularly at the diaspora level. But of course, you know, it's becoming a very big issue in India because that also organized because when there was a farmer protest took place, you probably have heard of it because last year it was a big protest. And in that protest, the mostly, of course, there are Hindus for Sikh farmers, but mostly Sikh farmers, Punjab farmers coming from there, they're all called Kallistan, they're all being branded by the parties that they were all the separatists. There are people those who went from outside, from Canada, from US, from Europe to help them because as you know, the Sikhs are very strong network within them. Those who went there, they were also called the Kallistanism, the separate Sikh separatists. And so it's become a much worse now. And I think it is also being used for political purposes. You won't imagine the kind of language, the kind of press which is the Canadian Prime Minister is getting after he went on to in India, after he alleged that or he went and went to the Parliament, Canadian Parliament and told that the India agencies are involved in this. There is a rise of head speech against minority communities becoming disturbingly common. It was not new, but it was hidden before it was all being given. But now it has become a politically fashionable, politically beneficial to do that. And this is not, the head speech comes from everywhere. It doesn't, head speech doesn't come from the ordinary people. Head speech comes from the top. You name it, it comes and this goes on. I think I'm taking too long because I was okay. I was scientific tempo. I think this is three things which was quite when India became independence, Nehru became the Prime Minister. Three things were the co-different, made India different from Pakistan or other post-colonial states that time. Democracy, secularism and scientific tempo. Nehru was an atheist. So I think what he did that he was much more into the science. Of course he knew understood India. He was allowing the, you know, he was not a kind of state which is moved into like a Marxist state. But I think, but the scientific temper was the most important part of his political philosophy and India has also part of the constitution and it's continued. And we also need to realize India being a country, a whole cultural civilization. It has its own myths. It has its own practices, old practices. So it has to be moved out to being, you know, in the new era. So what has happened? I mean, we see all the successes of this, of course, Modi takes these propagates that, you know, the recently India's landing on the moon and all these things, but you need to go back to that when it started, where it started and where it has reached. Saying this, there has been, there is a lot of evidences and it also comes from this Hindu nationalist political background that though a lot of pseudo scientific claims, traditional beliefs without scientific verification, they are being imposed on the people. There are, I mean, even you see the first few months of Modi became the Prime Minister, he went to a meeting and he said that the Ganesh, you know, the Lord, the India, one of, I mean, India has, Hindus have many gods. And one of the important God is Ganesh, who has the elephant trunk, elephant head. He said that India must have a very good, what they call it, medical science improved in medical science that time that they could really do the plastic surgery and replaced one with the elephant head on a God's head. That's the Prime Minister of a country saying, imagine what will be the others, what kind of way you can go on. So there have been several ways he himself has said and also any political leader from that party makes all sorts of claims. I mean, when the COVID became, COVID also created a lot of things. I mean, of course, they were targeting Muslims, they are targeting Christians, they are to various reasons, but all kinds of nonsensical things came up. There have been this cow urine became, now cow urine has become the most proudest thing of this Hindu nationalist movement. The cow dung, you name it, the present League Law Minister of India. He even said that's a papad. You know, that's Indian some kind of snacks or several snacks called the papadum that he even went into the media saying that if you eat it, then you will be cured by the cured from the COVID. He's the law minister now. So imagine how we have moved from India becoming a place where the science is being respected, science was promoted, and we are moving to the world of science in many ways. Quickly. So through this, or should I go on to other slides and wrap it up? What would you like to do? Yeah, let's move, because I think I have already covered this. It's also this one. Just this slide is also if you look at it though, because there have been all these organizations, I mean, why I'm saying democracy is dead. It's if you look at the freedom house, which is in your country, you look at the VDM, which is in Sweden. The idea is that India is not anymore considered as a democracy. It's called the partly democratic in freedom house. The VDM calls it a electoral autocracy. And that has been, you know, for the last few years now. So, and India being brought from a democracy to electoral autocracy, it brings almost 60, 70% of world's populations down to the autocracy. So the democracy became only India's shift made a huge change. Actually, the pendulum shifted from the majority of global population living in democracy now to the majority of population living in autocracy. If we, I mean, I have said lots of things. Is there any hope? Usually, my students usually also have always complained that I'm quite, you know, I must have some hope. There is one thing which is happening that the opposition is consolidating, focusing on economic issues and job creation. Modi took the advantage because opposition was divided. Congress Party, which has been in power or main opposition was also not being in a good shape. So I think it was all kinds of things which happened. So he not only adopted majoritarianism, he not only went for this Hindu nationalism, but also the division among the opposition. So there are possibilities now there are signs that they are coming together. They're also brought up the caste issue. That I think is a very interesting development. It happened when I was a student in India, but now it is back again. The caste census, they want the war because most of the thing that the most of the upper caste people, they have captured all sorts of political bureaucratic positions, powerful positions and other backward classes, not the Dalits, not the indigenous people, but other backward classes, those who are the called OBC in the Indian political language, they want to look at their caste census. And if they are, because there is an Indian census hasn't taken place from 2011, Indian caste census hasn't taken place ever. But now one state, Bihar, did a caste census, it just came out and many states are now saying there will be caste census. And I think that will and that has to some extent opened something, a very different way of how the BJP will be challenged. Because BJP's main strength is to unite Hindu votes. So if you bring the caste and make a caste is a big factor in the election, that's what the opposition is trying to do. Then once that will happen, then probably that will be a big change. Because I don't think the India's political party can only win or defeat BJP with the support of minority votes. They have to divide this the Hindu vote bank, which the BJP has. The Indian judiciary, I said, faces a significant challenge, but there is a current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He has displayed some signs of independence. And I think he will remain Chief Justice till the election is over for some time. So if there is any kind of attempt of supporting the election result, that is another factor which might work of that election is coming 2024 in a few months. Then the Modi's major financier, which is the Adani group, which became overnight the third or second richest for some time in the individual in the world is facing a serious problem every day. If in the last eight months, many things have come up that how he is manipulating the everything to get into that year. And he also owns most of the India's national nor the major strategic projects, the strategic infrastructures. And his economic trouble, I think, which is, I don't know how much that will affect politically, but I think economically or financially, it might affect the political party in power. There is also in month two, a couple of months or within a two months, I think there are five states are heading to elections, because there is a provincial election will take place. And this will be many of them are in the Northern India, which is the board banks or has been the traditionally supporting BJP. There are in many states, particularly the Madhyam Pradesh, which is one of the big states, where it's likely to be defeated is most likely, but we don't know everything, what will be once the election takes place, we know. So if these five states, BJP is defeated in all of them, there is a possibility, or in at least most of them, that will also give us some kind of momentum to the opposition alliance. So let's put it this way, if Modi wins in the 2024 election, there is a big possibility that India could constitutionally become a Hindu country. It will not, I mean, it has become in all practical propositions in the country, but there will be, they will remove this democratic and secular foundation from the constitution in a big way. That's my fear. If Modi loses the path of India's democracy and secularism in the, it will not be that quick. We must realize that it will not be that straightforward. You can see very well what is happening in life in states after Trump. So it will take time, it will might take long time, but there is a hope that it might be possible, but in the long run, I will stop here. Thank you very much. We have about 15 minutes for Q&A, and for those who are online only, I don't have the manpower to see what your questions are in chat. So unfortunately, I won't be able to present questions from the online Zoom chat. So apologies for that. Does our audience here have questions? Yes, sir. I'll get to you in a second. Yeah, good afternoon, Professor. Can you hear me? Yes, I am, please. Very thought provoking presentation. You have opened a box of Pandora, and we have shown us a different aspect of Indian politics and democracy. Okay, sir, I have two questions for you. You have mentioned on the first slide that there are going concerns for democracy in India since 2014. And to support your arguments, you have given many points with the facts and figures. But aren't these things there before 2014? So what has changed after 2014? Is it about only one person, Prime Minister Modi or BJP party or something else is also attached to it? And my second question is, you have shown the global hunger index that India is presently 111 out of 125 countries. In 2014, India was at 55 from out of 120 countries. But however, in 2014, India's economy was two trillion US dollars, which is 10th largest. And in 2022, India is 3.7 trillion with fifth largest. So aren't these datas are biased and forced just to undermine the image of India in front of the world forum? Your views on that. Yeah. Do you want me to go? Yeah, go ahead. Excellent questions. I think this is very important. And I mentioned that India was not a perfect democracy before. India had problems. India has suffering, you know, going through all kinds of issues. I will be stupid to say that India was a perfect democracy, perfect secular country, perfect country without any scientific, everything was with the scientific temper. That why I will never say, I mean, I know India well, not to really dare to say that. But I think why you need to realize what had happened. And I was explaining there has been a certain area time, which Indian democracy has suffered, I had mentioned particularly emergency period. Then also, but we saw a very big improvement in the Indian democratic structure, particularly when the Congress party lost this, it's a, it's a dominance domination all over the because then you will have a different political parties, different coalitions, different alliances, compromise, dialogue, discussions, debates, you make it. Of course, it looks very complicated, difficult, problematic. But as I said, if you understand the American democracy, it's not that rocket science. The democracies are always like that. And I think that is the time when India, as I was mentioning India was thriving also economically. And I don't say that it only Indian economy also was doing kind of well, when it came into the Buds Bay period to starting in the end of the Buds Bay period, which continued mostly 2000 to 11, 12, almost. And that is the time, which is a very, very difficult. If you look at it, the coalition and alliances were taking place. Saying that, what has changed in 2014? The 2014, we changed because the kind of vote, you see, when 98, particularly when it's a 2000, sorry, 99, when the Buds Bay came back to the power, particularly, and stayed in power 2004. There was a little bit of nervousness or there was a bit of nervousness that how they will do what they will do. Buds Bay is a kind of political leader who also grew up in a kind of post-independence political milieu landscape. He was, to a large extent, more democratic by heart. He was a people say he was, I mean, I don't know how much that is true, but he was say that he was a wrong man, or what do you call this, a right man, a wrong party or whatever. But he was very acceptable. He was accepted outside his party. He was a kind of a person who really bring people together. He has a charming persona of that nature, which brings people and somehow making accommodations, making, you know, so he was a different personality than the present prime minister, Mr. Modi. When Mr. Modi came to power, we need to realize that it's a very different type of personality came to power. You see, I myself had done a survey in Gujarat in 98 and a big survey. I was there in 2002 after immediately after this riot in Hamlaabad. A few days after, I was in 2005, was a visiting professor in MS University in Baroda in Gujarat. I have seen from the very close quarter what kind of politician he was. So it was not exactly the kind of thing that it was very surprising what happened. And I think it was, of course, all kinds of ways. I mean, his persona, he tried to become or give an image that he was the new Margaret Thatcher or what you call the Ronald Reagan of India that time in 2013-14. That's what many of the people bought. He also so waste also bought in many ways. But also he got a majority, a large majority where he didn't have to dependent on the other parties to make these kind of alliances and coalitions. And I think that's what, I mean, if you would have, then probably things would have been, you would have somehow in a way being much more cautious. And the BJP and RSS realized that that kind of majoritarian nationalism really give them the possibility of growing again and they have got the power. They could do it. And that was not only if you look at it 2014 to 2019, they're not very sure how far that will go. But when the 2019 Mr Modi came to power with the larger majority than 2014, you saw a number of things which happened around during that period which made it much more difficult. So it is not only Modi. Modi is the face. But of course, we need to see that this he comes, he represents a political mission, which is represented by RSS, which for the first time able to get the total power from 2014 and continues to think that the majoritarian nationalistic or whatever the way you want to say that this is where they will because they have possibility now to do their agenda, which has been there before for a long time, they can implement it because they always wanted a Hindu country. They always wanted that's from the very beginning. That's why they didn't like the constitution. That's why they didn't approve the national song. That's why they didn't approve the national flag. But now they do it because they think that that's not a big deal. But they can do the other things, which is a real thing that they can make it a Hindu country. So I think that's the difference. So it's a Modi and RSS both together, but are a Modi is the face of RSS. And that's what has happened from 2014. Talking about the economic issue. If you go back to this Hindu rate of growth, which we were worried about, we are making big people, the world was making fun of India. But that is the time you compare India and China. India was also much doing much better taking people out of poverty during that period, despite there is a less economic growth. When I wrote a paper, actually when Manmohan Singh was the prime minister that India, while the economic growth went, but then our the people, those who are coming from the poverty to poverty level to up, that decreased quite drastically. And it is and that continued. And I think we also must realize that China has done extremely well of uplifting the people from poverty by after its economic growth. Well, India hasn't has felt on that. And since I will just finish, since 1990, if you look at the 1990, India and China's economic economic growth per capita was almost the same or even India was better. Yes. We have last question. I'm sorry, he had his hand up first. So yeah, so and this will have to be the last question. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Unless we have a little bit of time. Hi, sir. I'm left wonder of the love from Pakistan Navy. Sir, one of the things that what I personally feel from 2014 that has drastically changed is India-Pakistan relationship that has drastically changed. Before that, even there was a BJP government, but we had seen President Musharraf and watch by having four point peace agenda, Aman Ki Asha and all those things that happens, people to people interaction that happened. And there was some hope that sometime there will be a peace and these two nuclear armed countries, they can get together and have a peaceful resolution have people to people collaboration. But however, what we have seen after 2014, as you have mentioned that there is politicization of military that we have seen in 2019 rhetoric against Pakistan, people of Pakistan, mainly that we have seen in the media and unilaterally taking decisions of the abrogation of article 370, all these steps where Pakistan is trusting every other day less on the Indian government and the rhetoric is on the same. So the passion has raised to a limit where rational things are kind of being not being considered anymore. So in your point of view, is there any hope of peace and collaboration between India and Pakistan that to growing economies of the world? I think we need to realize if anybody could have make a piece from Indian side with Pakistan, it's either somebody from BJP. It's very difficult for the Congress to do it or the any other opposition party to do it. But that's why, despite all my misgivings about Modi in the 2014, I was hoping that what Bajpayee had started, he will probably able to do it. And he did started a kind of in a good note like he invited the Prime Minister of Pakistan that time for his worth taking. He also went on his way from Afghanistan, I think was coming back on invited. He went to attend his Pakistan Prime Minister, somebody's family's wedding function, which I think was a kind of a way he started it in the beginning. Though, but the you see the India Pakistan issue is extremely complicated. You have to take a number of actors, those who are involved in this part, you need to have a kind of political strength, which I think he has, because he can really deliver. But you must have also moral, mental and conviction and commitment to be there in the process. As we all know, any kind of this kind of conflict of 75, 78 years conflict that will be always when you're negotiating will go up and down, up and down. You need to keep your politics aside and try to become somebody who can really do it. But unfortunately, his patience ran out in a very few months, past few months. And I think because he also realized that it will be better to have this kind of relationship with Pakistan, which will be politically beneficial rather than having a comfortable or friendly or forget about friendly working relationship with Pakistan. But if you say he is because there is a his relationship with China, let me put it, China has occupied, I didn't bring the issue of China. China has occupied also China India relationship. I mean, probably United States is thinking something else, forget about that. But China has taken large part of the Indian territory at least to 2000 square kilometer, not Indian. I mean, it was a disputed territory, but it was under Indian control. And that is taken by China. But till now, the Prime Minister Modi hasn't even uttered a single word about China. He doesn't name China. He has even on record, I mean, what we know, and it has been confirmed by the American diplomats, he has even said America not to bring up that issue. Why? Why he takes a tough position against Pakistan and takes this kind of position against China? Because in China case, he realizes that he cannot really show his strongman image. He can do it and to get the votes and he will be always in the, you know, in a side which you thought. But in the Pakistan side, he can really have that upper hand. He can do it. And it also has goals against this Hindu nationalist that you can also target Muslims in India. So I think it is the India-Pakistan relationship, which he could have done it in the beginning. But he thought that it is very important for him, for his own politics, rather than India's national interest. Do you have time for one more question? Yeah, it's okay. Absolutely. Good afternoon, Professor. I'm Commander Vikrant from Indian Navy. I'll be really precise to my question with respect to the military under scrutiny. Now you have the mostly the entire talk has been about the government after 2014, which is mostly led by the Modi and the BJP government. But the only use of military which was done against civil populace was in 84, where emergency was given and operation Gluestar was undertaken. In the recent past, I don't see any military being deployed and used against civil power or used as an aid to the civil power by the government. So what are the bases of these allegations that you have put in the presentation? The second question is about the COVID-19 challenge. COVID was a very difficult time for everyone and we do understand people had few imaginations how this COVID will go because no research could be done. But the country which was at the forefront of finding out the exact solution and getting a vaccine and with most of the people getting vaccine and even giving out vaccine to the other countries as a good will gesture was no one else than India under the leadership of this government. So how do we say we will have people who will have who will have voodoo science, logics to everything, but we will have leadership which will which is actually going to do good. So how do we rather justify this? Yeah, sorry, you want to say something? No, sir, that's it. Thank you. I think I have a very simple answer to the second question. I will answer your first question, but one second. I think you should read the WHO report, not to read what the government says. Of course, I don't understand that why you say that, but I think it's important that we must look at the reports which has come from the WHO, why it is not accepted by Indian government, what how many people died in India, who actually which I mean we the kind of the Indian vaccine where it was given, who gave it, how much percentage of Indian vaccines or Indian origin vaccine was used. India is not new in the vaccine productions. India has a world's leader in the vaccine production. It's nothing new, but why really didn't work out or what has worked out, how many people died, that's some things I will leave it up to you to look at the WHO report. But I think it is more, I think the most important question is the one which you started. I agree with it that India which is going to the or the 1984 operation blue star 1984. It was done. I mean, and that become a major issue and steal this. If you look at the six separatist movement, which is a little in Indian side, but mostly in the diaspora side, the basics things goes to that 1984 military operation. I totally agree with that one. But I think we need to realize the military operations which are being used, military now is also being used in Manipur, isn't it? Assam rifle, what is that one? Assam rifles, if you go back to the history, which has been placed since our independence and formation of the defense forces, it is not something new which has been formed by the government. No, I'm not saying new. I'm saying that it is being always, I mean, army is also in the Kashmir continuously. So, army has been continuously being used. Let's not to discuss that one. But I think what has happened is here that a party, if you look at 2019 election, the way the Prime Minister Modi went to the election with the attack, which is the terror attack took place in the Pulwama in Kashmir. After that, there was this airstrike, whether there has been the debate, whether it was successful or not. There was no evidences, but we don't really get into that discussion. But to make that an election issue and not only election issue to demonize not only Pakistan, not only Kashmir is also Muslims openly. That's where the political and creating the kind of political posters using the army for your political elections. That's what I'm saying, the politicization of military taking place. The kind of persons who was also appointed, you know, the what you call that chief of joint forces or whatever he was and then he died in the helicopter crash. And if you really wanted to do it, why you didn't appoint him for a long period of time? And then what is happening now to that position? These kind of things, which is even you asked the military to create the bridge for the Sri Sri doing a function in Jammuna. I mean, I will give you a number of examples how it is being used and abused. And I think it is very important that a military is a military is a secular character has to be not only maintained, but it has to be respected. It doesn't need to be only what it is. It's also shown to the world that it is there. So it is extremely important that we follow that. But I mean, of course we can disagree, but I think this is the way I see it. Thank you, Dr. Swain, for your presentation and Q&A. We appreciate your time and hopefully we'll be in touch for another such event down the road. But thank you. We really do appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye. Thank you guys. Thank you.