#133 The Centre Cannot Hold 🎧

While excellent newsletters on specific themes within public policy already exist, this thought letter is about frameworks, mental models, and key ideas that will hopefully help you think about any public policy problem in imaginative ways.Audio narration by Ad-Auris.  

India Policy Watch #1: Satyam Eva Jayate?  

Insights on burning policy issues in India

- RSJ

We often talk about truth, disinformation and radically networked societies in this newsletter. Our interest in these issues is often on account of news stories around us. But that’s not all. We find there’s a more fundamental shift on the understanding of truth that’s underway in societies around the world. That is what fascinates us about truth.

Now, truth or its nature is the basis of all philosophy from the time Socrates started asking questions of fellow Athenians at the public square many centuries ago. Yet we come back to the question of truth and certainty again and again over the course of our history. Not because attaining the truth is an epistemological necessity for our race. That it might be. Instead understanding the nature of truth is important to control it. And those who control the truth control power. Not only for the present but far into the future.

So what’s the point of this random discourse on truth at the start?

Truth Is The First Casualty

There were a few news stories over the past couple of weeks that made me wonder about where we are on truth in India today.

First, the kerfuffle between Twitter and the Indian government. A lot of commentary on this topic conflate two issues - one, Twitter not complying (yet) to certain parts of the new IT intermediary guidelines and two, Twitter tagging certain tweets by BJP spokespersons on the Congress ‘toolkit’ case as manipulated media. The first point is of limited interest to me. There are new guidelines and they must be followed if you want to be treated as an intermediary in India. Others have complied and Twitter has been lax.

The second point is interesting. Twitter claims it has a global policy on tagging certain tweets as manipulated media and that’s what it followed in the Congress ‘toolkit’ case too. This claim has been attacked by many. Some have questioned Twitter’s commitment to free speech and alleged it suppresses right wing handles more than others. I haven’t seen any credible data to support this so I don’t know. But, more importantly, invoking freedom of speech argument here betrays a poor understanding of the concept. Free speech is a right of the citizens that has to be protected from the state which holds a legitimate monopoly on violence (Weber). Suppression of free speech is an issue only when the state is involved. Private entities don’t have that monopoly on violence. If they suppress free speech on their platform, well, there are other platforms.

The other attack on Twitter is more credible. Who is Twitter to arbitrate on truth? How does Twitter know what’s the truth? These questions are closely linked to the other news story about a viral video involving an attack on a Muslim man in Ghaziabad. The UP police filed an FIR against Twitter and Mohammed Zubair among others for creating communal divide and intending to disrupt public peace. Zubair is the co-founder of AltNews, a fake news busting media outlet. Zubair and AltNews had done the forensic work debunking the Congress toolkit document on Twitter. It is possible that work could have been the reason for Twitter to have tagged certain tweets as manipulated. Now AltNews was being accused by the state for spreading fake news. Life has came full circle in two weeks for Zubair.

Why has the question of truth become so fraught in our lives? Why are we inundated with versions of truth on social media each with its compelling argument and logic? Have we lost objectivity while looking for balance while reporting on truth? These are tough questions. I have no answers. Easy or otherwise. But since we have come so far with piece, like Crime Master Gogo, we need to go back with some takeaways.

Truth And Truthfulness

We live in times where we are suspicious of every claim of truth. We look for who is making the claim, we investigate it, we check on their politics and we debunk the claim if there’s even a whiff of their allegiance to the other side of the political divide from us. This is now the norm.

Of course this has always been the case in politics. Political parties are formed on the basis of the belief among the members that theirs is the right path. That the party knows the truth that will lead the society or the nation to the lofty goals set out in the constitution. Politics has always been about '“our truth” versus “their truth”. It is a contestation on versions of truth.

This we lived with. But the problem of our times is how deeply politics has pervaded every sphere. There’s not even a sliver of convergence on truths in any subject these days because politics cannot countenance it. No inch can be yielded to “their truth” anywhere. So, the effort on all sides is to bury the others in an avalanche of lies. The more tenuous your truth, the greater the desire to fight with an arsenal of lies.

Bernard Williams, the great analytical British philosopher, wrote about this in his last book, Truth and Truthfulness (2002). For Williams, truth is a cultural value to be defended against the onslaught of lies. The accuracy and the sincerity with which we identify and then speak the truth across all social forms is worthy of a good fight. Else, we lose everything. I have excerpted from the first couple of pages of the book below. Williams had presaged the current times of the widespread suspicion of truth even before the advent of social media:

“Two currents of ideas are very prominent in modern thought and culture. On the one hand, there is an intense commitment to truthfulness - or, at any rate, a pervasive suspiciousness, a readiness against being fooled, an eagerness to see through appearances to the real structures and motives that lie behind them. Always familiar in politics, it stretches to historical understanding, to the social sciences, and even to interpretations of discoveries and research in the natural sciences.

Together with this demand for truthfulness, however, or (to put it less positively) this reflex against deceptiveness, there is an equally pervasive suspicion about truth itself: whether there is such a thing; if there is, whether it can be more than relative or subjective or something of that kind; altogether, whether we should bother about it, in carrying on our activities or in giving an account of them. These two things, the devotion to truthfulness and the suspicion directed to the idea of truth, are connected to one another. The desire for truthfulness drives a process of criticism which weakens the assurance that there is any secure of unqualifiedly stateable truth. Suspicion fastens, for instance, on history. Accounts which have been offered as telling the truth about the past often turn out to be biased, ideological, or self-serving. But attempts to replace these distortions with “the truth” may once more encounter the same kind of objection, and then the question arises, whether any historical account can aim to be, simply true: whether objective truth, or truth at all, can honestly (or, as we naturally put it, truthfully) be regarded as the aim of our inquiries into the past. Similar arguments, if not quite the same, have run their course in other fields. But if truth cannot be the aim of our inquiries, then it must surely be more honest or truthful to stop pretending that it is, and to accept that.

We can see how the demand for truthfulness and the rejection of truth can go together. However, this does not mean that they can happily co-exist or that the situation is stable. If you do not really believe in the existence of truth, what is the passion for truthfulness a passion for? Or - as we might also put it - in pursuing truthfulness, what are you supposedly being true to? This is not an abstract difficulty or just a paradox. It has consequences for real politics, and it signals a danger that our intellectual activities, particularly in the humanities may tear themselves to pieces.

…. My question is: how can we address this situation? Can the notions of truth and truthfulness be intellectually stabilised, in such a way that what we understand about truth and our chances of arriving at it can be made to fit with our need for truthfulness? I believe this to be a basic problem for present-day philosophy.”

Pluralism, Balance And Objectivity

The other challenge to truth has come from a total lack of understanding of the concept of value pluralism among the media. The construct, popularised by Isaiah Berlin, allows for two or more incommensurable values to be held at the same time by a polity each of which may be true and still be at odds with one another. For Berlin, these differences are unlike a titanic battle between the right and the wrong; instead they are about accepting contradictions and differences in values which then deliver diversity and strength to a society.

The media has distorted the notion of pluralism to some kind of an elusive ‘balance’ in its coverage of any issue. Both sides must be represented is a common refrain. The role of the media is to unearth truth through objectivity. Balance doesn’t help in that. That the earth is round is a truth objectively established. Of course, there are ‘flat earthers’ still who think otherwise. The role of media is not to give air time to both in in the interest of pluralism or balance. That’s lazy journalism and an invitation to untruths of every stripe to be concocted to crowd out the truth. This is what has happened. Social media platforms have accentuated this generation of untruths. Over time these turn into ‘versions of truths’ which get quoted by mainstream media aiming for a balance by presenting both sides of the story. It is a systematic perversion of truth.

We All Have Our Truths Now

There’s also the failure of liberalism to defend stoutly the core values it stands for in the past decade. It has been attacked from the outside by those with conventional suspicion of the liberals. But liberal ideas have withered under the attack from within from the supporters of relativism, moral scepticism and extreme identity politics. The reverence of relativism among the liberals has meant there’s no objective truth for them anymore. Everything is true in its context. Therefore, everything is false too.

This ambiguity has meant everyone can claim their own truth based on some kind of a lived experience. Nothing is sacred in general anymore because everything can be questioned. Simultaneously, everything is sacred in particular because there’s a never ending contest to be purer than the next person. It is difficult to even define a truth in these circumstances. Forget defending it. This absence of a rigid commitment to an ideology by the liberals would lead to moral panic, anarchy and philistinism as Leo Strauss had warned. This is where we seem to have arrived.

Lastly, there’s a vast majority who watch this battle of different versions of truth from the sidelines. They think of themselves as the audience. They aren’t. It is they who are being played in the arena. Yet, often, they know the truth and they see through the game. But they remain onlookers, reluctant to take sides and ever willing to be taken in by what’s unfolding in front of them.

When truth is no longer valuable, it is they who end up paying the highest price.

Like Ramdhari Singh Dinkar wrote:

समर शेष है, नहीं पाप का भागी केवल व्याघ्र,जो तटस्थ हैं, समय लिखेगा उनका भी अपराध।

Translation:

This war over truth is eternal. Your adversary isn’t alone in the wrong. Those on the sidelines, unwilling to take a stand are culpable too. In time, they will face a reckoning.

India Policy Watch #2: When Federating Units are Extinguishable

Insights on burning policy issues in India

— Pranay Kotasthane

Many reports of restoration of J&K’s statehood came out this week. In what appeared to be a step towards restoration, the PM and HM met leaders of significant political parties of the J&K Union Territory.

And so it appears that a former state in the Indian Union — reduced to a UT a couple of years ago — might soon become a state again, albeit a truncated one, and on terms different from the ones before August 2019.

Any issue involving J&K is a Pandora’s Box. So, for a moment, keep the particularities of J&K aside and consider this question: what does the Indian government’s flip-flop story tell us about the nature of federalism in India?

Before answering this question, let’s take a detour to our western neighbour. As in many other areas, it teaches us what not to do.

The One Unit Programme

The four provinces of Pakistan as we know today didn’t exist between 14th October 1955 and 1 July 1970. These provinces, along with erstwhile princely states, were merged together into a single unit: the One Unit called West Pakistan.

The primary reason was to create parity between the eastern and western wings of the country. East Bengal was renamed East Pakistan and the whole of its western wing became West Pakistan. Provincial governments of Sindh, NWFP, Balochistan, and West Punjab were dismissed and these units were relegated to being merely divisions of the province of West Pakistan.

In 1954, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Bogra, is believed to have expressed this hope:

There will be no Bengalis, no Punjabis, no Sindhis, no Pathans, no Balochis, no Bahawalpuris, no Khairpuris. The disappearance of these groups will strengthen the integrity of Pakistan.

We know how that turned out.

Now, look at this from a federalism angle. Most federations have a centripetal bias meaning that the union is stronger than the states. But if provincial governments can be dismissed with the ease as it was done in Pakistan, can that system even be called a federal one?

Perhaps not. I came across a key differentiation between federalism and decentralisation that sheds some light on this question in A Review of Indian Fiscal Federalism by Dr Govinda Rao:

A federal system is the one in which the entire set of powers — legislative, fiscal and regulatory — are divided in the Constitution or conventions between different levels of government. There is a measure of permanency in the assignments and in particular, the powers given to lower level governments cannot be extinguished by higher level governments (Breton, 2000). Thus, checks and balances to safeguard the system is an inherent part of the federal system whereas, decentralisation does not necessarily entail that. In other words, all federal systems are decentralized whereas all decentralized systems are not federal. The Constitution and other institutions set up to ensure checks and balances and safeguard the domains of different levels of government are inherent components of a federal system.

Seen from this lens, the Pakistani system was decentralised but not federal.

What about the Indian system?

Article 3 of the Indian constitution permits the Parliament to, by law:

(a) form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State;

(b) increase the area of any State;

(c) diminish the area of any State;

(d) alter the boundaries of any State;

(e) alter the name of any State;

At the same time, the ‘basic structure doctrine’ recognises Federalism as one of the basic and hence unalterable components of the Indian constitution. So, in all likelihood, if the Indian union were to embark on a One-Unit or Four-Units programme of its own, the Supreme Court would come in its way. In other words, the ‘measure of permanency of the Indian federation’ rests on the role of the judiciary.

What about the J&K Reorganisation Act?

Now, we return to the central question. Does J&K’s conversion into a UT go against the basic structure doctrine? I’m not competent to analyse the legal aspects of this question. As it stands, several cases are pending before the Supreme Court which argue that the act was unconstitutional because it goes against the basic structure doctrine. Even after two years, the Court hasn’t made a decision yet.

From a non-legal perspective, it does seem to me that the J&K reorganisation goes against the spirit of federalism.

This is perhaps the first time a full-fledged state of the Indian union has been converted into a union territory. This is an important distinction because the powers that J&K enjoyed as a state were in one fell swoop ‘extinguished’ by the Indian government.

A notification in Oct 2020 allowing non-residents to own immovable property in the union territory illustrates this point further. This was not allowed under J&K’s pre-independence State Subject Laws. Many border states and regions in India still have such restrictions. Even beyond India, it is not unusual for peripheries of nation-states to be accorded special status, as a quid pro quo for accepting a higher sovereign. The undoing of this arrangement with J&K by a union government rule militates against ‘permanency in assignments of powers’ to lower levels of governments, a key requirement of federal systems.

In sum, even if we keep the specifics of J&K aside, India took a step back on the issue of federalism on August 5, 2019. The move towards reversing some of the damage caused is welcome and much-needed. Pakistan should warn us about the costs of sacrificing federalism at the altar of national integration.

Other good articles on the One Unit scheme:Formation of One Unit, The NewsFlashback: One Unit: a dark chapter in our history, Dawn

India Policy Watch #3: Phrases that Should Fall into Disuse

Insights on burning policy issues in India

— Pranay Kotasthane

Words have meanings. They indicate the quality of a nation’s policy discourse. With this idea in mind, we are compiling a running list of words and phrases that should disappear from India’s public discourse. Here’s the first instalment.

* Haves and Have-nots. You would have come across this phrase in many policy discussions. It is easy to present every policy problem as an eternal class struggle between the ‘haves and the have-nots’. And yet, this understanding is misplaced.

A speaker at an event I attended a few years ago said that ‘there is no such thing as haves vs have-nots. Instead, there are haves and want-to-haves’. A lightbulb went off in my head.

The underlying story behind the haves/have-nots formulation is a zero-sum one. The implicit causality is that the haves have it because the have-nots don’t. The haves are the villains merely because they are successful, rich, or privileged. Structured this way, only one kind of policy recommendation can surface — take things away from the haves and distribute them to the have-nots.

The alternate formulation of haves and want-to-haves has a positive sum game at its core. It acknowledges that individuals from both groups are united by the same purpose — to make their lives better off. It doesn’t vilify the haves. The policy recommendations derived from this perspective focus on the ways to increase opportunities for the want-to-haves. A language of confrontation is replaced by a language of competition.

* Centre/Central Government

The DMK government in Tamil Nadu has raised this issue in recent times. And they are right. ‘Centre’ and ‘Central government’ are terms that are not mentioned even once in the Indian constitution. Not only is it inaccurate to call the union government as the central government, this formulation implicitly assumes that Delhi and the Union government are at the centre while other Indian places and state governments are at the periphery. Given that the Indian constitution explicitly devolves certain powers to states, there is no scope for a government that can claim centrality over the others.

This is what well-known constitutional expert Subhash C Kashyap has to say on the matter:

“From the point of the usage of the words, 'centre' indicates a point in the middle of a circle, whereas 'Union' is the whole circle. In India, the relationship between the so-called 'Centre' and States, as per the Constitution, is actually a relationship between the whole and its parts. The relation between the whole and its parts is definitely different from the relation between a centre and its periphery”.

* Population Bomb/Population Explosion.

It is a national pastime to blame overpopulation for India’s problems. Maybe, population was a problem in the last decades of the Raj and the early years of the Republic. But those Malthusian concerns have long become irrelevant. India’s total fertility rate has dropped from six in 1950s to near replacement levels of 2.2 in 2020. This decline has happened across religions and regions in India. Note what the Population Foundation of India says:

“Religion has little to do with fertility levels. Muslim dominated countries like Indonesia and Bangladesh, have out-performed India in terms of falling birth rates.  Even within India, the fertility rates among Muslims in Kerala is lower than the fertility rates among Hindus in Bihar. States like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh have proven that it is not religion that matters.  What has made the difference is education, employment opportunities and accessibility of contraceptives. In neighbouring Sri Lanka, fertility rates were stabilised by simply increasing the age at marriage, a move that was made more effective by ensuring girls were educated.”

In fact, we might soon have the problem of a falling working-age population. By 2035, the dependency ratio — the proportion of working-age population to non-working age population — is expected to peak. So, we should get rid of Malthusian notions of overpopulation from our public discourse. Blame undergovernance, not overpopulation, as my colleague Nitin Pai says.

HomeWork

Reading and listening recommendations on public policy matters

* [Article] “Don't Give Up on Truth” in the Persuasion: Yascha Mounk and Jonathan Rauch discuss the dangers of disinformation, the limits on robust debate, and why truth is fundamental to preserving democracies around the world.

* [Article] The Population Foundation of India has a note on Lessons for India as China calls off two-child policy. Again, a case of a neighbour helpfully reminding India of the mistakes it should avoid.

* [Interview] The News Minute speaks to Subhash Kashyap on the differences between ‘centre’ and ‘union’.

* [Podcast] On Puliyabaazi, Saurabh and Pranay discuss China’s three-child policy, rising petrol prices in India, and implications of the economic and social disparities between India’s southern and northern states.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit publicpolicy.substack.com