Don’t spare terror-sponsoring states

Israel’s Minister for Energy and Water Resources Uzi Landau says democracies should jointly fight terror

As the Arab Spring turns cold and bitter, threatening to break the fragile peace that has somehow held together the vast and disparate region of West Asia, Israel has watched its position turn precarious in this past year. With its peace treaty with Egypt under threat, the crucial Sinai pipeline repeatedly bombed and sworn enemy Iran on the verge of acquiring a nuclear bomb, these are uncertain times for the Jewish nation.

But, for a country that has fought at least six major wars for its survival and is surrounded by adversaries, Israel remains more than prepared and vigilant to handle any future crisis. In an exclusive interview to The Pioneer, Israel’s Minister for Energy and Water Resources Uzi Landau explains how his country is preparing to face the challenges that lie ahead.

With elections bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power, in post-Mubarak Egypt, the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, which Mr Landau rightly describes as the “cornerstone for stability and future peace in West Asia”, now hangs in balance. Only late last week, at least two senior leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose political wing now heads the Egyptian Parliament, threatened to “review” the treaty with Israel if the US cuts aid to Egypt. On his part, Mr Landau insists that Israel “will do whatever is possible to continue with the peace agreement and use it as a base to develop other peace agreements in the area,” but expresses deep concerns at the manner which events are unfolding across Arabia.

Mr Landau remarks, “However, and I hate to say ‘however’, when I look around West Asia, I see this huge span of territory from the Atlantic in the west to the Persian Gulf and beyond in the east convulsing in an earthquake which is bringing down regimes that until now had been stable, such as the ones in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and even Yemen.” He points to the “terrible undercurrents” in Syria and elsewhere and notes that “under the guise of democracy and free elections, the Muslim Brotherhood and the radical Islamist elements are making their way to the helm of affairs.”

This is a matter of great concern especially since “the more civil parts of society that came to the streets in order to have a free and more democratic country find themselves pushed to the back.” Mr Landau’s comparison of the anti-Government protests in West Asia with the Iranian revolution of 1978 that brought the radical regime of Ayatollah Khomeini to power is interesting.

Those still in doubt must take note of the fact that the Sinai pipeline which runs through Egypt and delivers gas to Israel as well as Jordan was bombed for the 12th time in this past year — on February 5. Since the protests in West Asia began, gas supplies to Israel had come to a halt. They were renewed only in January. “We are doing whatever we possibly can to renew the flow,” Mr Landau says, emphasising that the natural gas agreement with Egypt is perhaps the most important economic agreement between the two countries. But at the same time, he adds, Israel is also looking to “offset this lack of natural gas by other sources of energy.” Unfortunately, his options — coal and heavy oil — are limited, more expensive and bad for the environment.

Luckily for Israel, new offshore gas fields have been found and Mr Landau believes that there is enough to meet the country’s needs for the next 50 to 60 years, if not more. Additionally, Israel is also developing and diversifying its own sources of energy. “In a worst case scenario, if something happens to hamper natural gas supply for certain period of time, we have others ways to sustain ourselves,” says Mr Landau. Then, as an after thought, he adds, “Please note, I am coming from, as it is described in the Bible, the land of milk and honey. But, it doesn’t say anything about natural gas, or energy.”

Yet, in this context, energy security is perhaps everybody’s greatest concern. Especially with the ongoing global standoff with Iran, West Asia’s energy equations with the rest of the world will possibly have to be re-formulated. This, however, Mr Landau does not see as a problem. He reasons that “Iran’s many enemies including Saudi Arabia might actually be more than eager to offset the losses incurred by those previously buying Iranian oil with their own oil. It simply needs time to adjust to a system.”

The oil sanctions against Iran that have been recently imposed by the US and the European Union have had a crippling effect on that country’s economy although is still unclear if they will actually prevent Tehran from pursuing its controversial enrichment programme. Mr Landau agrees, “I am not sure if the sanctions will work,” he says, but adds, “They should be stepped to make clear to the Iranian Government that no one is prepared to see a nuclear Iran.”

If Mr Landau strikes a pragmatic posture here, he is equally clear in his mind that his country will not hesitate to take affirmative action if such a need arises. He insists that Iran is a “major exporter of terrorism” and that it is linked to various terror organisations such as Hizbullah, Hamas and Al Qaeda.

After all, if Iran goes nuclear, it will only set in motion another nuclear arms race, with Saudi Arabia immediately looking to acquire nuclear weapons. Given the latter’s vast financial resources and close ties with Pakistan, the development will have worrying consequences for India. Moreover, as Mr Landau asks, “What kind of world is this going to be? Remember, you are not speaking of responsible regimes. You are speaking of those who couldn’t care any less.”

So how does the world deal with such rogue regimes that terrorise the world? To that, Mr Landau counters, “Why does terror exist? Because it works; because terrorists see that they can go ahead and have some benefits.”

He adds, “Only if terrorists and terror-sponsoring states are met head on, and shown that terror will never pay, will this mindless violence stop. I think this really should be the policy of every free country.”

It is but natural for the conversation, while on terror, should veer towards the recent attacks on Israeli embassy cars in New Delhi and Tbilisi — and towards the alleged role of Iran in the attacks. When asked how Israel responds to such attacks, Mr Landau points out that his country has been under attack ever since it came into existence. There have been wars, terror attacks, bombings and more at regular intervals. “But we continue our day to day routine, giving up nothing.” This, he says, is as much a challenge as successfully combating terrorists in the battlefield and elsewhere is.

With India facing much of the same challenges as Israel, Mr Landau hopes that this country too will be able to fight terror without compromising on its core principles of equality, liberty, freedom and democracy. “We both live in difficult neighbourhoods and yet we maintain our democracies. Our Parliaments are still functioning,” he remarks. This in itself should form the basis of a strong relationship between India and Israel.

(This article was published in the Op-ed section of The Pioneer on February 23, 2012.)

Nothing honourable about this delay

Despite receiving suggestions on how to check ‘honour killings’, the UPA has failed to act

Every year, women across the country are sacrificed in the name of family honour. A young woman is believed to be the repository of her family’s social values, and any perceived violation of the same — a love affair with one who belongs to a lower caste or another religion or even the allegation of unfaithfulness in marriage — is reason enough for cold-blooded premeditated murder. Hence, fathers have killed their daughters, brothers have murdered their sisters and entire villages have watched while one of their own has been beaten, thrashed, strangled, tortured, stoned, hanged or shot to death.

For all of India’s stellar economic credentials and its census statistics showing a marked improvement in literacy and education, several parts of the country are yet to emerge from their regressive mindsets that chain their society to the middle ages. The situation is made worse by the murderous role of the khappanchayats who often officiate over such killings and thus endow them with a sense of legitimacy even though they themselves have no legal standing. Entire communities have shown little remorse in having participated in honour killings.

And as if that was not enough, it now seems like more are joining the dark side with reports of honour killings now emerging even from the southern States. In November 2011, an entire village in Karnataka’s Mandya district stood quietly as 22 year old Suvarna was beaten to death by members of her immediate family for falling in love with a Dalit boy, who too was tortured before he was allowed to escape with his life. Add to this the constant stream of reports that have routinely come out of the northern States, particularly, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, especially in the last  two years, and there is no denying that the scourge of honour killings today is a pan-Indian issue.

Yet, the Union Government has done precious little to tackle the menace. It has gone through the motions of constituting task forces and expert panels — there is a working group under the Planning Commission and a Group of Ministers led by Union Minister for Finance Pranab Mukherjee assigned to deal with the issue — but that’s been the end of it. Take for instance, the Government’s panel headed by the Women and Child Development Secretary. Earlier this month, it recommended that a separate law be promulgated to exclusively deal with the issue of honour killings. But nobody has cared to respond. This is, of course, not entirely surprising, given that the Government had earlier effectively ignored the draft of the Prevention of Crimes in the Name of ‘Honour’ and Tradition Bill, 2010, piloted by former Minister for Women and Child Development Girija Vyas.

Ms Vyas’s Bill is a fairly broad-ranging one that brings under its purview all kinds of harassment that couples who seek to marry without the approval of their immediate family or society may face, such as threats of economic sanctions and social ostracisation, physical attacks and public support to such threats and actions. It also gives significant credence to even verbal complaints lodged by couples, with punishment of those convicted ranging from one to 10 years of imprisonment.

However, in one of its more contentious clauses, the Bill suggests an amendment to Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act so as to put the burden of proof on the accused instead of the accuser. This is in reversal of the universally accepted principle of criminal justice that  an accused is innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution. It is perhaps for this clause  why the Bill has been all but dumped for good.

Yet, India’s anti-dowry laws already allow for such an exception. Indeed, it is pertinent to note that it was only after the Government amended Section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code  to bring about anti-dowry laws, that it has gradually seeped into the country’s social conscience that dowry deaths are a crime and there is no sanction, definitely no legal sanction, for such acts. Of course, the laws have not wholly obliterated every instance of dowry death but at least, they have contained the menace to some extent. A law against honour killings could have a similar impact.

Indeed, the Bill also calls for an introduction of a fifth clause to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code which defines murder. This would make honour killings a distinct offence and anybody who participates in it, including community members supporting the khap panchayat diktat and not just those who actually carry out the murder, could be held responsible — similar to laws regarding Sati.

But, in early January, the Law Commission of India rejected all proposals to amend Section 300 on the ground that the current laws are adequate enough to deal with all sorts of killings, honourable or otherwise. It also warned against adding to unnecessary legalese and overturning established principles of jurisprudence.

Instead, the commission has presented its own Bill. The Prohibition of Unlawful Assembly (Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliances) Bill, 2011, proposes that no person or group of persons shall assemble with an “intention to deliberate on, or condemn any marriage, not prohibited by law, on the basis that such marriage has dishonoured the caste or community tradition or brought disrepute to all or any of the persons forming part of the assembly or the family or the people of the locality concerned.” This effectively makes illegal khappanchayats that meet to interfere in legally valid marriages. Additionally, it also charges all those present at such assemblies with non-bailable offences, a two-year jail term and a fine of up to Rs 30,000.

These are only a few instances of concrete recommendations that have come in from various quarters but the Government remains blissfully oblivious to them. It is perhaps because the khaps are a politically powerful lot and their influence extends across various political parties.

The Supreme Court had said back in May 2011 that honour killings are the rarest of rare crimes and perpetrators deserve nothing less than the death sentence.

It noted, “In our opinion, honour killings, for whatever reasons, come within the category of rarest of rare cases deserving death punishment. It is time to stamp out these barbaric feudal practices which are a slur on our nation.”

Is anybody listening?

(This article was published in the op-ed section of The Pioneer on February 16, 2012.)

Turbulence in Indian Ocean

Coup rocks political stability in Maldives as Islamists gain strength

"Be vigilant of what not only might happen in the Indian peninsula, in the islands but also of what may happen in the wider Indian Ocean,” then President of Maldives Mohamed Nasheed had warned cadet officers at the Sri Lanka Military Academy on December 27, 2011. His words rang true on Tuesday when mutinous factions within the police and the Army joined hands to remove him, the country’s first democratically elected President, from power.

Since Mr Nasheed announced his resignation on Tuesday evening, he has been held by the military at an undisclosed location, reportedly against his will, while his former Vice President Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik, has positioned himself at the helm of affairs. He is expected to preside over a national unity Government until the end of the ongoing presidential term in 2013 after which general election are supposed to be held, although how free or fair they will be is anybody’s guess.

Maldives is a young democracy, barely four years old. The past three decades it was under the autocratic rule of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom who ruled the country with an iron fist. Under his reign, Mr Nasheed, a journalist by profession emerged as the country’s best known dissident. A staunch rights activist and champion of democracy and civil liberties, he tirelessly campaigned to end dictatorial rule in Maldives. His activism led to his being imprisoned 16 times; he even spent eight months in solitary confinement undergoing immense physical and mental torture. Eventually, his campaign brought global attention to Mr Gayoom’s abusive regime. Growing international pressure ultimately forced the Maldivian strongman to allow free and fair elections in 2008, in sharp contrast to the electoral shams he had overseen over the past decades.

Mr Nasheed emerged victorious in the 2008 general election and took office on November 11 with a huge popular mandate. From day one, he was committed to taking his fight against autocracy to its logical conclusion by establishing a strong democratic framework in his country. But his transition from activist to President, no matter how well-meaning, was far from smooth. Mr Gayoom was gone but his party was still active and elements from the old regime remained deeply entrenched in the system — be it in Parliament, within the police or the Army — and fighting them off proved impossible.

Along with the Islamists, the old guard was determined to thwart the Nasheed Government’s every effort to reform and restructure the country’s socio-political institutions, and sadly, it seems to have succeeded. The situation was made worse in part by the fact that Mr Nasheed despite his popularity and goodwill, did not have a majority in the Maldivian Parliament, known as Majlis. He was, therefore, heavily dependent on the Opposition to pass any major reform or legislation. And while he did have the support of some Opposition parties at the start of his tenure, much of that eroded in the course of the next few years as Mr Nasheed embarked on a political campaign to weed out all elements of the old regime.

But given the kind of influence still wielded by Mr Gayoom and his supporters, this was a strategic mistake. With the Opposition becoming ever more critical of his rule, Mr Nasheed found it impossible to conduct even the daily business of governance. In recent times, the Majlis was in a complete deadlock as the Opposition refused to let it function. The most obvious fall out of such a political logjam was the corrosion of popular support. A governance deficit meant the prices of essential commodities soared while unemployment too was on the rise. Add to this the Islamists’ slander campaign against Mr Nasheed, and his presidency was ripe for a coup.

Indeed, for months before Tuesday’s virtual coup, the Islamists had been out on the streets attacking Mr Nasheed’s religious views and policies, such as his decision to maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. Unfortunately, the former President failed to bring these rabble-rousers under control as he dawdled between appeasement and punishment. For instance, the Government first gave in to the Islamists’ demand to ban spas across the country in December 2011, but overturned the decision at a later date.

The final straw, of course, came with the arrest of the Chief Justice of the criminal court. Like many other members of the judiciary who are believed to be in Mr Gayoom’s pockets, Justice Abdulla Mohamed had refused to prosecute members of the old regime and had been stalling cases of graft and rights abuses brought against them. His political bias was vitiating the system and making it impossible for Mr Nasheed to deliver on his promise of an independent judiciary. However, the judge’s arrest led to a constitutional crisis which prompted the Supreme Court to step in and order his release.

But as the Government ignored the order, Mr Nasheed’s critics were quick to  accuse him of browbeating his opponents much like his predecessor. But the fact remains that he had been pushed to the wall and had to retaliate.

As the controversy raged on, the past three weeks saw street protests break out throughout the densely populated capital of Male. On Monday, the headquarters of Mr Nasheed’s Maldives Democratic Party came under attack and overnight, vandals captured the offices of the state television broadcaster MNBC. They also renamed it TV Maldives, as it was called during Mr Gayoom’s regime. The situation deteriorated on Tuesday when soldiers fired rubber bullets at revolting police officers and other demonstrators who had laid siege to the Maldives National Defence Force headquarters in Republic Square.

With the possibility of large-scale violence looming and the military holding a gun to his head, Mr Nasheed was faced with a choice to either crack down on the protesters or leave office. Ever the rights activist, Mr Nasheed announced his resignation on Tuesday evening saying that, “It will be better for the country, if I resign. I don’t want to run the country with an iron fist”. His departure speech is a testimony to the kind of leader he aspired to be and only serves to underline what a tremendous blow this has been to Maldives’ infant democracy. Thankfully, he seems determined to fight back as his call to President Waheed on Wednesday to resign stands proof.

Mr Nasheed had once said that Maldives has shown the world that, “You don’t have to bomb a Muslim country for regime change.” And indeed, the Indian Ocean archipelago could have been an apt precursor to the Arab Spring. That the old guard is gaining power in Maldives at a time when Islamist-back Governments are taking over across Arabia is perhaps a telling comment.

Nonetheless, it is still too early to comment on how the recent developments in Maldives will eventually play out. On its part, India whose relations with Maldives go back a long time, will do well to ensure that its neighbour’s democratic credentials are upheld and that the Islamists who have already reared their ugly head are not allowed to run amock.

India had come out in Mr Gayoom’s support back in 1988 when former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had sent out military support to buttress the Maldivian dictator’s faltering regime. New Delhi should have stood by Mr Nasheed in his hour of crisis.

(This article was published in the Op-ed section of The Pioneer on February 09, 2012.)

America reinvents policies to meet new challenges

By scripting the most dramatic shift in its foreign and defence policies since the end of the Cold War, the US prepares to confront a new world order 

When US  President Barack Obama said in a recent interview that, “I made a commitment to change the trajectory of American foreign policy …and I think we have accomplished those principal goals,” his statement was lot more true than popularly acknowledged. Indeed, the new set of ‘defence strategies’ unveiled by his Administration earlier this month marks the most significant shift in US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.

In the two decades since, Washing-ton, DC has actively played the role of a global hegemon that has maintained an absolute military superiority over the rest of the world, further strengthened by its economic prowess. Indeed, even after the threat of a communist take-over had been effectively eliminated by the late eighties, the US military was only nominally downsized from its War time proportions.

In the first half of the post-Cold War era, the continued maintenance of such a mammoth defence structure was justified by military engagements in Europe (think of the ‘humanitarian intervention’ of the US-led Nato forces in the Balkan Wars) and in West Asia (a successful Gulf War saw the containment of a belligerent Saddam Hussein). Then, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, there emerged a new enemy in the form of Al Qaeda and its network ofjihadi groups. It was, and still is, a stateless, shadowy entity that has nevertheless been portrayed as an evil superpower, somehow akin to communist Russia or Nazi Germany, to once again rationalise the presence of a vast American military. Indeed, as the first US troops landed in Afghanistan, neo-conservatives even declared that this would be the fourth World War (the third being the Cold War), or the ‘Long War’.

A decade later, Mr Obama has now declared that war to be over. Osama bin Laden is dead (although the threat of global jihadists remains, but that is another story), US engagement in Afghanistan is winding down, and for all practical purposes, there are no longer any American boots in Iraq.

But that is not all — the past 10 years have also witnessed the sagging of America’s economic strength. Weighed down by a mounting national debt, the US economy which is yet to fully recover from the global financial meltdown of 2007-2008, can no longer afford a gigantic military — and definitely not one that had supposedly been prepped to fight two wars at the same time. Besides, the possibility of a traditional land war is almost obsolete in a nuclear and globalised 21st century.

It is against this backdrop that the new policy, which seeks to trim the US military and renounce the bipartisan consensus achieved post-1989, must be understood. From performing the traditional role of a hegemon fighting ‘nation-building wars’, Mr Obama’s new doctrine focuses America’s attention on balancing power equations among emerging nations such as India and China in the Asia-Pacific region.

This will be done through a network of regional allies on the front-stage, in diplomatic terms, and through sophisticated secret surveillance, un-manned drones and CIA-style special operations in the back-stage, in military terms. A preview of this kind of warfare is already available in the manner in which the US is carrying out counter-insurgency operations in the AfPak region.

Also, compare this to the far more boots (and weapons) intensive approach of traditional warfare and it naturally explains the smaller, leaner, more agile but technologically advanced military that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta talked about at the release of this strategic document at the Pentagon. Finally, the new strategy also fits in with the narrative of fiscal discipline and domestic cost-cutting that has become an American imperative since the economic downturn.

Grounded in realism, the new policy is a classic example of realpolitik and marks a definite break from the quest for imperial hegemony of the neo-conservative years of former President George Bush and his deputy Dick Cheney who foolishly led US troops into an expensive and ineffective ground battle in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But the new policy is not without flaws. For instance, if the Obama Administration hopes to contain China’s imperialist tendencies — and make no mistake that that is exactly what the new strategy is all about — then simply positioning ships across the Asia-Pacific from Japan to South Korea and even in far away Australia will not serve any purpose. If anything, this unnecessarily aggressive posturing of the US can only serve to provoke an already jittery China.

Ultimately, Mr Obama’s policy is a reflection of his people’s mood. Americans are tired of foreign wars and now simply want their boys to come back home and not in a body casket, please. There may have been a time when a John F Kennedy could have captured the nation’s imagination by promising that his country would “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” But those days of a zealous commitment to Americana or the rhetoric of freedom and liberty that surrounds it are long gone. Think of how quickly popular support waned for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, even though far more American soldiers died in the Vietnam and Korea. No one really bought the fourth World War logic, and they are no less glad that it is now over.

(This article was published in the op-ed section of The Pioneer on January 26, 2012).

You can’t keep people out

A rights-based approach to urbanisation is needed to protect the most vulnerable of city residents

The idea of urban space in India goes back to the times when the astonishingly well-planned dual townships of Mohenjo Daro and Harappa formed the anchor of the ancient Indus Valley civilisation. Since then, several new cities have appeared while many others have declined and withered away.

An important part of this evolution process has always been the people who moved to these cities in search of new opportunities, better prospects and, in general, a good life. In fact, the migrant population has contributed significantly to the growth of our cities, especially in post-independence India. As they move from areas where there is surplus of labour to areas of deficit, they raise the overall productivity of the labour force and balance out imperfections in the labour market. Moreover, migrants to the city also contribute to the growth of their villages back home through remittances. In other words, migrants are important drivers of our national growth.

In spite of these, migrants, especially those who are poor, unskilled and work in the unorganised sector — they make up for at least 65 per cent of the entire migrant population — are not viewed positively. They almost always face some form of discrimination in the city, and the situation is only made worse by the growing anti-migrant sentiment. More often than not, they form the most vulnerable group of city residents at any point. Their protection and well-being is perhaps the greatest challenge to urbanisation in modern-day India; a challenge that has taken on an all new proportion given the alarming rate at which the number of the country’s urban poor is increasing.

It is in this context that a rights-based approach to the problem is helpful, as a recent UN report shows. The concept of the Right To The City is a particularly powerful one. It was first suggested by French social scientist Henri Lefebvre as a radical call to all city residents to “contribute to the production of urban space”, in his 1968 book by the same name, but received large-scale attention only in the 1990s when neo-Marxist American scholars such as David Harvey realised its significance in the present-day urban context.

There are, of course, multiple interpretations of what exactly the Right to the City means, but essentially it can be defined as a right to enjoy all that the city has to offer. At the core of the RTTC lies two fundamental points: The first relates to the domain of legal entitlements and moral claims, while the second is about the distinctive idea of formal rights and substantive rights. For instance, the ‘right’ to travel, work and settle in any city has little value unless cities are made affordable (think housing), accessible (transport), safe (effective policing, street lights etc) and liveable (urban amenities) for all.

When viewed within this context of the Right to The City — the right of everyone, including migrants, to enjoy the benefits of all that the city has to offer — the phenomenon of migration and the challenges it poses takes on a whole new meaning. To understand how exactly the Right To The City is applicable, it would be worthwhile to place it as a backdrop to one of the most visible manifestations of the socio-economic deprivation faced by migrants — slums.

The operational definition of the slum, as suggested by the UN, refers to any area that exhibits certain key characteristics such as inadequate access to safe water, sanitation and other basic infrastructure, poorly constructed housing, insecure residential status and overcrowding. The Slum Census of India 2011 similarly defines slums as any a collection of poorly built, mostly temporary, tenements, crowded together usually with inadequate sanitary and drinking water facilities and unhygienic facilities. Other authorities have described a slum variously, but the essence remains the same.

The 2001census pegged the number of people living in slums across Indian cities at 43 million — this represents about 23 per cent of the entire population. In the past decade that number is estimated to have grown to a whopping 93 million people. That is, 93 million people without having access to clean drinking water and sanitation facilities, living in shoddily constructed houses in overcrowded colonies, from where too they can be evicted without a minute’s notice.

The common refrain in favour of such evictions,which are undertaken simultaneously with the large-scale demolition of slum colonies (often in attempt to ‘beautify’ our cities), is that the construction was illegal in the first place, and that the slum-dwellers were illegally occupying another’s land. While this is often true, it must be understood that illegal occupation of vacant land is usually the only option available to the poor migrant who simply cannot afford the city’s expensive housing options.

Worse still, such eviction and demolition programmes lead to long-term cumulative impoverishment that has been routinely ignored by babus who sanction these acts. The occasional resettlement and rehabilitation programme that sometimes accompanies such mass evictions have proved to be largely inadequate. They benefit only a handful of slum residents while the poorest of the lot find themselves literally on the road, stripped of even their meagre possessions.

This only feeds a vicious circle of urban poverty. But for this to halt, a whole new perspective is necessary. This must be based on the understanding that migration is not a phenomenon that is borne out of poverty but one that contributes to our national growth. Migration is not about dependence on the city but about development of the country.

Finally, migration is also a matter of ‘right’. Those who move to the cities have the Constitutional right to do so. Article 19 states, “All citizens have the right to move freely… reside and settle… practice any trade or profession throughout the territory of India”. Also, Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of their personal liberty. Taken with the concept of the Right To The City, several experts working in the field of urban planning say there is sufficient ground to render slum evictions not only illegal but also label them a gross violation of human rights.

Indeed, slum demolitions and forced evictions form some of the worst practices performed by the Indian state. Not only do they violate human rights to adequate housing, but also the right to livelihood, health, education, culture and the  right to live with dignity.

It is high time the civic authorities took note of the ground realities and make a concerted effort to go beyond the hollow slogan of ‘inclusive cities”. They will find that The Right To The City approach provides an excellent starting point.

(This article was published in the Op-ed section of The Pioneer on December 26, 2011.)