Become A Member

Research Articles

What is the need for yet another faith-based manifesto?

Blog, Research Articles /

We decided to ask the community. On 8th June 2024, a new group called Hindus for Democracy suddenly came out of nowhere and joined the din of faith-based groups presenting political manifestos. Our diaspora desk took the initiative to investigate why this group, a loose composition of various Hindu organisations, felt the need to produce a 7-point demand of politicians to take note if they wanted the Hindu vote.   As a rule, religious manifestos should be received with sufficient skepticism, as they can be subversive to the democratic process. The essence of a liberal democracy is the separation between Church and State, for the obvious matter that in a diverse society policy-makers ought to be making their decisions on rational, impartial grounds, one that takes the considerations of all citizens. Often religious manifestos can prioritise particular religious grievances over what is good for the majority. They can also be divisive, narrow in mandate, and can “other” different groups within the society. These religious groups often emphasize foreign affairs and can drown out the discussion on everyday British matters that concern the vast majority. It is with this skepticism that we wanted to review the Hindu manifesto, and ask those who championed it, why they felt it was necessary.    We asked Trupi Patel, President of the Hindu Forum of Britain, who told us: “ The document highlights the importance of Hindu aspirations in the political fabric of British society and inform the future Parliamentarians about the rightful needs of the community”. Rajnish Kashyap, the General Secretary of the Hindu Council (UK), another Hindu umbrella body said: “This document aims to maintain the community’s religious and cultural practices”. Echoing similar thoughts, and adding how this document would be helpful for the community itself, Mr. Dhiraj  Shah, President of Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh (UK) said: “The Hindu community in the UK is well integrated, law-abiding, and a net contributing community to every sector of national life, beyond its numbers. While these are positive points, several community concerns have not been properly addressed. Faith-based consultation is a part of the policy-making framework of the United Kingdom’s democratic tradition. Therefore, this manifesto is a democratic instrument for Hindus in the UK to engage with politicians. This will give the government clear guidance on the needs of the Hindu community. The particular community-specific aspirations mentioned in the seven themes of the manifesto are in addition to general aspirations like access to healthcare and controlling inflation, which concern all the residents living in the UK.” A national team member of INSIGHT UK, a group representing the Hindu and Indian community mentioned that “Hinduphobia or Anti-Hindu hate is on the up in the UK, as we all saw during the Leicester unrest”. To further support this point, Insight UK also referred to a 2023 report on ‘Anti-Hindu Hate in Schools in the UK’ commissioned by the Henry Jackson Society. They went on to tell us, “The manifesto provides a working definition of ‘Anti-Hindu hate’, which may be adopted, or discussion may start around it to define and recognise it as a religious hate-crime.  Recognition of Hindu-hate, as a hate crime is one thing, but the manifesto also asks that anyone involved in Hindu-hate be prosecuted and an organisation that spreads Hindu-hate even proscribed. The Muslim Council of Britain is another body that has been championing Islamophobia along the same grounds and has also been criticised for trying to shut down fair criticism. What those who are behind the new Hindu manifesto seem to be pointing towards is that whereas the Police and the wider British State seem to recognise Antisemitism and Islamophobia, Hindu-hate is a relatively unknown concept and not logged, and therefore remains invisible.     The second theme concerns the protection of Hindu places of worship (Mandirs). The document refers to the special security schemes framed by the UK government for the protection of places of worship for Jews and Muslims. As cited by the manifesto, these schemes grant GBP 117 million for the protection of the Mosques and GBP 70 million for the protection of Synagogues. The manifesto demands a similar special protection scheme for the protection of Hindu Mandirs, particularly in the light of attacks on Hindu mandirs in the recent past. A spokesperson of ‘Hindu Mandir Network’ said “without disputing the necessity of a special protection scheme for other places of worship, we expect that it is recognised that Hindu Mandirs are equally at risk from Hate-crimes and therefore equal and appropriate special financial support should be provided.”. We asked young Hindus too, about their involvement in the creation of the Hindu Manifesto. We asked Nikita Trivedi, Sabbatical Officer at the National Hindu Students’ Forum (NHSF UK), who said that “everyone knows that education is the most important thing for any Hindu parent. We literally worship knowledge. It seems only fair that the State recognises that the Hindu community also has challenges around access to good schools.”  Asmita Bhudia, a representative of the Hindu Education Board (HEB), and a teacher herself, told us “that there is a pressing need for a comprehensive and accurate representation of Hinduism in Religious Education (RE) within UK schools”. Hindu children in the UK seldom have a choice to pick up their own religious tradition to study at higher levels. Additionally, text books and information on teaching Hinduism is patchy at best, and rather non-existent in many places. It seems perfectly reasonable to highlight the need for fair access, and additional resources to help produce better, more accurate material for teachers, coupled with adequate training.   The issue of immigration has also been raised in the Hindu Manifesto (UK), somewhat bizarrely. There are three asks in the document: First, to streamline the visa process for Hindu priests to be allowed into the country who are often caretakers of some of the 380 Hindu temples across the country. Mr. Rajnish Kashyap from Hindu Council UK and Chairperson of Vishwa Hindu Kendra Mandir Southall noted that “Hindu temples in the UK often struggle to

What is the need for yet another faith-based manifesto? Read More »

Rishi Sunak’s National Service: Insights and Discussion  

Blog, Research Articles /

Author: Chloe Schuber, Operations Assistant : Strengthening Democracy Desk 26th of May. Rishi Sunak proposes reintroducing mandatory national service for 18-year-olds where the ruling Conservative Party is reelected. This announcement was recent, politically, as well as electorally strategic, given contrasting statements from the party days before. This strategic move by Sunak has stirred controversy and criticism by both the public and opposing parties in the upcoming elections, casting a shadow over the Conservative’s already troubled campaign.    The plan aims to have every 18-year-old by September 2025 enrolled in armed forces placements or non-military volunteering. Community volunteering, equating to 25 days over a year would be within organisations such as the NHS, emergency services, and local infrastructures. The military placement is a more intensive and selective program with 30,000 placements intensive for the “brightest and the best” 18-year-olds in areas relating to cyber security, civil response, or even logistics.  This 2.5 billion-costing attempt at a renewed sense of purpose amongst younger generations and patriotism has been criticized by Labour amongst others as desperate and unfunded.   Who is this for, if not for the younger generation concerned with this policy?   This announcement has been analyzed to be a move for Sunak to appeal to the older Tory electorate especially with the Right dividing itself with the upcoming elections. Why the national service? Aligning with Conservative values such as the strengthening of a nation is key to winning over certain electorate demographics. A 2024 YouGov Survey on this very subject underlines the statistics.   Older Conservative individuals surveyed prevail as those who support this proposition. This demographic seems to view national service as a solution to bridging the generational and ideological divide, fostering a stronger connection to declining national identity and traditional values amongst youth. Only 10% of 18 to 24-year-olds strongly support national service. The data is clear on who Sunak made this promise to.  Criticisms from Military and Political Figures   Former military chiefs and Conservative figures (Admiral Alan West, former Chief of the Naval Staff & Michael Portillo, a former defense secretary amongst others) have been particularly vocal in their opposition, amidst an underfunded defense budget unable to maintain or even enhance the current professional armed forces. Fiscal responsibility and overall public demands on more pressing needs seemed to antagonize what Sunak’s campaigning agenda put forth with this announcement.  Imposing an underfunded government brand the inclusion of tens or hundreds of thousands of untrained teenage volunteers would strain the armed forces with no benefits or better funding in sight.  The policy is unlikely to be successful without first solving rooted structural issues in this institution.  Political and Public Reactions This announcement, characterized as optimistic electoral opportunism, is undefendable regarding the statistics and insights available to politicians on the current situation and views of UK Youth. (Richard Dannatt, former Chief of the General Staff) A sensible policy measure is needed rather. Fixing the current state of defense and further down the line, establishing a dialogue with youth on how to build a sense of civic identity with these generations who did not experience mandatory military service, most likely for the best, many agree on.  John Healey, Labour Candidate and Shadow Defense Secretary stated, ‘The Conservative made recruitment crisis is just one example of their failure in defense for 14 years.’  Conservative ministers during this past decade in power have repeatedly missed recruitment targets, leading the British Army to its smallest since the 1800s. (UK Defence Journal, 2023) Returning to the disconnect, lack of consensus, and strategic planning from within the Conservative Party, some Tory MPs applauded this policy as a bold and smart move, it was vastly acknowledged as very poorly communicated which sparked confusion and skepticism about the very foundation of this idea.  Broader Implications and Risks   The broader implications of Sunak’s proposal extend beyond immediate financial and logistical concerns. This initiative blatantly displays Sunak’s critical and somewhat impulsive political moves to appeal to more right-wing voters and respond to political pressures. The rise of parties like Reform UK has divided the Right and the Conservatives have seemingly resorted to more radical measures to try and reclaim voters. Alongside this, a more general fear and questioning has been brought up in light of geopolitical tensions, some seeing this push for more military conscription as the prediction of future conflicts and the use of national services as a tool for future military actions.   How will this impact the armed forces in practice? Financially, the proposal is contentious. The estimated minimum £2.5 billion annual cost by the end of the decade of the program alarmed many. In addition, the training of 10,000 volunteers would require additional officers, leading to this project costing much more. Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Andrew Murrison also highlighted the risk of unmotivated recruits being mixed with committed professionals, damaging morale, recruitment, or retention. This goal of bringing purpose and pride to their nation to 18-year-olds seems counterproductive considering the compulsory nature of the new system.   Societal Impact   The societal impact of the proposal reflects Conservative priorities. The fundamental motivation behind this promise Sunak made, was not to benefit younger voters but rather to please, target and rally votes from older generations. Young people typically unfairly feel to a deeper extent where UK society’s flaws come to light, underfunded education, cost of living crisis, and oversaturation of the workforce. Rather than addressing these issues through more effective or inclusive policies, 12 months of state-mandated national service or ‘compulsory volunteering’ does not prevail as the most thorough plan to help the youth. And perhaps, it was never meant to be. The youngest generation entering the electorate is predicted to vote Labour to an overwhelming extent. Rishi Sunak has already lost this battle of connecting with a youth who does not feel heard by the Conservatives.   Conclusion    To conclude, the overwhelming criticism of Sunak’s proposal for mandatory national services has sparked discussions in a diverse sphere of societal issues the UK faces. As Conservatives continue navigating this issue, criticisms regarding

Rishi Sunak’s National Service: Insights and Discussion   Read More »

india elections

The 2024 Lok Sabha Elections – What Next?

Blog, Research Articles /

Author: Pravar Petkar, Head of Strengthening Democracy Desk The world’s largest democratic exercise has now concluded. The BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate and incumbent PM Narendra Modi is set for a third term in office. Yet the dynamics now are very different to those in 2014 and 2019: gone is the BJP’s overall majority; Modi instead must govern in a coalition with the BJP’s partners in the National Democratic Alliance, which collectively won 293 out of the 543 seats in India’s Lok Sabha (Lower House). The result shows India’s democracy is alive and kicking: to borrow Mark Twain’s phrase, reports of its death are greatly exaggerated. No democracy worth its salt can fail to have free and fair elections, with a peaceful transfer of power and the possibility that incumbents might be voted out. The results of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections show a democracy in action. From 2019, the BJP lost 63 seats (falling from 303 to 240), with the NDA as a whole dropping 60 seats. Conversely, the Indian National Congress (INC) almost doubled its vote share from 2019, rising from 52 seats to 99. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) of which the INC was part held only 91 seats in 2019, but the newly formed INDI Alliance (Indian National Development Inclusive Alliance), established before the campaign began, secured 234 seats in total. This represents a significant anti-incumbent swing, with around 642 million of the 970 million registered voters having turned out to vote (approximately 66%). This puts some perspective on allegations by the INC before the announcement of the results that the counting process was rigged in favour of the BJP. There is also little concrete evidence that Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) were manipulated, with the Supreme Court of India affirming the integrity of the process in April 2024. In fact, the celebration of the results by all the major parties only lends further credibility to India’s electoral arrangements. The results suggest that Indian democracy is shaped by a complex series of factors that cannot be reduced to the politics of religion. Some commentators have suggested that the BJP’s loss of seats demonstrates that economic issues will always trump the politics of religion. Whilst the BJP campaign did draw on religion – including an address by PM Modi in Rajasthan in which he claimed that under the INC, Muslims would have “the first right” over people’s wealth – both parties highlighted India’s current issues of youth unemployment. That said, the INC manifesto was headlined by a proposal for a nationwide socio-economic and caste census, and the promise of increased affirmative action for Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Other Backward Class (OBC) groups. As they have in previous elections, caste politics may have shaped the outcomes in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state. For many, the question is whether the politics of religion have run aground on the rocks of democracy: the answer is not yet clear. For most, the outcome of these elections is rather unexpected. It had been assumed across the world in the lead-up that the BJP would secure another overall majority. Amit Shah, the Home Minister from 2019 to 2024, had even suggested that the NDA was aiming for 400 Lok Sabha seats, a record majority. It is difficult to square the BJP’s downturn with the view – expressed by the INC, members of the international media and academic commentators – that India had simply ceased to be a democracy between 2014 and 2024 because the BJP was in power. As Rahul Verma of the Centre for Policy Research in Delhi puts it, “the assertion that the erosion of democratic values is the creation of one party and its recent electoral success is an untenable oversimplification.” This is neither to obscure nor deny the religious nationalism of the 2019 BJP Government, or the way in which a one-party government has led to the centralisation of political authority in India. However, judgments about the health of any country’s democracy must be made based on structural and long-term factors, and as Verma suggests, by reference to standards attuned to each country’s unique institutional and cultural features. A flourishing and sustainable democracy does not cease to be so simply because a different party comes into power, nor does democracy suddenly become re-awakened when authoritarian, populist or anti-democratic parties are voted out. There are nevertheless two structural challenges to Indian democracy which are currently worthy of attention. First, recent commentary by the ICfS has noted issues in the appointment process for the Election Commission of India (ECI): after the Supreme Court of India had mandated the Leader of the Opposition’s involvement in appointments, the BJP Government legislated to replace the Leader of the Opposition with a Cabinet Minister instead. The natural conclusion is that a watchdog that ought to be independent has been politicised. This has raised questions around whether the ECI’s application of the Model Code of Conduct – including a finding that PM Modi’s Rajasthan speech violated the code – was truly objective, as violation notices were issued to both the INC and BJP as parties, rather than to individual candidates. Maintaining India’s long-term democratic health requires the new NDA Government to reverse these changes and safeguard the ECI’s independence. Second, questions persist over whether India’s regulatory framework for tackling AI-generated misinformation is up to scratch. The 2024 Lok Sabha election campaign saw deepfakes of Bollywood actors criticising PM Modi , as well as fabricated videos of two deceased politicians in Tamil Nadu addressing today’s voters. Recent Government-issued advisory notes emphasise the obligations upon social media platforms and AI companies to be transparent about AI-generated content and remove anything unlawful. However, the broader regulatory scheme exposes platforms to criminal liability for unlawful speech where content is flagged by Government-approved fact-checkers as ‘false’. This raises free speech concerns that go the heart of whether Indian citizens can make decisions at the ballot box based on a wide range of perspectives. With the BJP Government having

The 2024 Lok Sabha Elections – What Next? Read More »

The Nature of Power: A Complex and Intricate Dance

Blog, Research Articles /

 ‘Power’, said Marcus Aurelius, ‘is something that can only be exercised within oneself, upon ones own mind – not outside events. Realise this, and you will find strength’. [Meditations, Book VI, Ch. 8] It is a question that we seldom ask these days – what really is power; where is it found; and how can it be really exercised? Power is a multifaceted concept that extends beyond mere authority or control. It is an intricate web of influence, perception, and ability to effect change. Defining power involves understanding its sources, mechanisms, and limitations. According to political theorist Robert A. Dahl, power is the ability of one actor to make another actor do something they would not otherwise do (Dahl, 1957). To What Extent Are People in Positions of Power Actually in Power? Prime ministers, ministers of state, and CEOs of large companies are often perceived as the epitome of power. However, their ability to exercise this power is frequently constrained by various factors. For instance, political leaders like Narendra Modi, or our own Prime minister Rishi Sunak, operate within a democratic framework where their decisions are subject to parliamentary approval, party politics, and public opinion. CEOs, despite their significant influence within their corporations, must answer to boards of directors, shareholders, and regulatory bodies. The limitations on their power are numerous. In democracies, politicians must navigate a labyrinth of bureaucracy, legal constraints, and public accountability. This often results in a dilution of their power as they are forced to compromise and negotiate. Similarly, CEOs face market competition, regulatory environments, and internal company dynamics that can hinder their ability to implement changes unilaterally. The Performance of Power in Politics In democratic systems, politicians often find themselves wearing a metaphorical mask, performing an alter ego that aligns with public expectations and media portrayals. This performance of power, rather than the actual wielding of it, becomes crucial for maintaining their position. The notion that politicians must “act” power rather than be powerful is vividly illustrated in their public personas and campaign strategies. Narendra Modi, for example, has cultivated a strongman image, portraying himself as a decisive leader capable of transformative change. Rishi Sunak, with his polished public appearances and careful articulation, embodies the image of a competent and reliable leader. Even Keir Starmer presents himself as a principled and steady alternative to the current government. These public personas are meticulously crafted to resonate with voters and maintain their support. However, the performance often takes a toll on their true selves. The constant need to project power and confidence can lead to a disconnection from their authentic personalities, resulting in a deranged or altered character. This is not merely an act of deception but a necessity imposed by the nature of political life. Power in this sense can be deeply corrosive to the character of any politician, and takes a Herculean effort, and large portions of luck to maintain integrity, honesty, and vulnerability. Power and the Media: The Role of Communication Often in British democracy, to effectively wield power, politicians must often bypass traditional bureaucratic structures and communicate directly with the public. This is typically achieved through the media, which acts as a filter and amplifier of their messages. Only by engaging with the public can politicians hope to turn the cogs of power and initiate change. Liz Truss provides a poignant example of this phenomenon. Rory Stewart, a fellow politician, recounts an incident where Truss, uninterested in genuine policy development, demanded a hastily concocted seven-point plan for national parks. This plan, quickly handed to the BBC for publication, served more as a performative act of power than a substantive policy initiative (Stewart, 2023). Truss’s actions illustrate how the desire for power can eclipse the commitment to actual governance. The Realities of Power The case of Liz Truss is emblematic of a broader trend where the allure of power can overshadow its responsible exercise. The performative aspect of power is often prioritized over its substantive application. Politicians like Truss crave the appearance of decisiveness and control, even if it means neglecting the follow-through necessary for real change. In contrast, Rory Stewart himself represents a different approach to power. His dedication to detailed policy work and genuine change highlights the potential for power to be exercised responsibly and effectively. However, such an approach is increasingly rare in a political landscape dominated by media performance and public perception. Stewart, to-date, has failed as a politician in the United Kingdom precisely because he refuses to engage in the performative aspects of being a politician. So what? The nature of power is a complex interplay of influence, perception, and action. Those in positions of authority, whether in politics or business, are often constrained by external factors that limit their ability to exercise power fully. In democratic systems, the need to perform power complicates the genuine exercise of it, leading to a disconnection between public personas and true capabilities. Ultimately, the effectiveness of power hinges on the ability to engage directly with the public, leapfrogging bureaucratic inertia and leveraging media influence. As the cases of Modi, Sunak, Truss, and Stewart demonstrate, power is not just about holding a position but about the delicate dance of perception, communication, and action. This nuanced understanding of power reveals both its potential and its pitfalls, underscoring the importance of authenticity and responsibility in its exercise.

The Nature of Power: A Complex and Intricate Dance Read More »

Understanding Kashmir Post-370: Assessing Security Trends

Blog, Research Articles /

Author: Shruti Kapil, Researcher and Mutual Dependence desk. We are pleased to share an in-depth analysis of the significant changes in Jammu and Kashmir following the abrogation of Article 370. This briefing paper examines the security situation and progress in the region, especially in light of recent attacks on Hindu pilgrims, security personnel, and other civilians that have drawn global attention. Authored by Shruti Kapil, the paper delves into the historical, cultural, and geopolitical aspects of Jammu and Kashmir. It offers a detailed look at the region’s security landscape and socio-economic conditions following the legislative change on August 5, 2019. The analysis also emphasizes the delicate balance between security measures and human rights, the importance of transparent governance, and the necessity for inclusive economic development. Additionally, it highlights the role of international diplomacy in shaping global narratives and securing support for India’s position on Kashmir. For a comprehensive understanding of these critical developments, please follow the link to view the full paper here.

Understanding Kashmir Post-370: Assessing Security Trends Read More »

Navigating the Minefield: Misinformation and disinformation in Indian elections

Blog, Research Articles /

Author: Shruti Kapil, Associate Security & Mutual dependence Summary: the 2024 General Elections in India have been labeled the ‘AI elections’. There is growing evidence of both opportunities for political parties and threats to the information ecosystem, with a careful balance required between government regulations, innovation and fostering individual responsibility through education. The 2024 general elections in India are being labeled as the ‘AI elections,’ with artificial intelligence (AI) playing a significant role in campaign strategies. With nearly 986 million voters, 751 million internet users, along with a digital literacy rate of 61 percent in urban areas and only 25 percent in rural regions, the impact of AI presents an unprecedented challenge. The World Economic Forum has identified misinformation and disinformation as India’s top threat for 2024. Additionally, a survey conducted by the digital rights organization Social & Media Matters found that nearly 80 percent of India’s first-time voters are bombarded with fake news on prominent social media platforms. With 462 million active social media users in India, the concerns regarding the dissemination of misleading information are profound. Such content holds the power to influence voting behavior, compromise electoral integrity, and even incite civil unrest. Numerous instances have highlighted the impact of AI on elections, presenting both opportunities and threats. From AI-generated calls to translated political speeches, to encounters with manipulated videos targeting political figures, the spectrum of AI applications in elections is vast. The central question remains: how can we harness AI for constructive purposes while mitigating its potential negative repercussions on democratic processes? Generative AI has demonstrated significant potential in voter outreach, particularly through telephone communication. For instance, Polymath Solutions, an AI firm based in Ajmer, is conducting a pilot project wherein local politicians interact with voters through AI-generated calls, addressing their concerns in real-time. Similarly, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) utilized an AI tool named Bhashini to dub and translate Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s speech for Tamil-speaking audiences, highlighting AI’s positive impact in overcoming language barriers. Bhashini functions as an AI-powered language translation system, enabling conversations among speakers of diverse Indian languages. This tool has received mixed reactions, with concerns raised about the potential manipulation of content. While AI undeniably offers significant advantages in political campaigns, such as cost reduction, labor-saving, and broader reach, its potential for facilitating misinformation, disinformation, and deepfakes cannot be ignored. Instances of fake news and deepfakes targeting politicians and celebrities, such as actors Amir Khan and Ranveer Singh criticizing PM Modi, underscore the profound impact of AI-driven threats on elections. Similarly, a video purportedly featuring Home Minister Amit Shah announcing changes in reservations stirred controversy, only to be later exposed as edited. There have been instances where deceased politicians were digitally resurrected using AI for political campaigns, leading to voters being misled by these messages. Despite their deceptive nature, these videos garnered millions of views after going viral. Misinformation not only misleads people and undermines trust in the information they encounter but also serves as a convenient excuse for individuals to dismiss authentic content as fabricated or AI-generated. In response to these challenges, the Election Commission of India (ECI) warned political parties against using AI to create deepfake content, mandating removal within three hours of notification. However, delays in removal underscore the need for specific laws to address AI and deepfake technology and deter misinformation. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has issued its first formal guidance on AI models and tools. On March 15, 2024, MeitY retracted a contentious advisory that previously required AI firms to obtain government approval before making their products available online in India. The new advisory eliminates this requirement, instead emphasizing the importance of transparency, content moderation, consent mechanisms, and the identification of deepfakes. The goal is to ensure responsible AI deployment, protect electoral integrity, and enhance user awareness and empowerment. Many in the tech industry criticized the advisory for its ambiguity and its potential to hinder AI innovation. There is a fear that stringent regulations may prompt AI startups to relocate to countries with more favorable regulatory environments. While the advisories represent a positive step forward in an area previously uncharted, their ambiguity has sparked unease within the tech community. India currently lacks a dedicated legislative framework for overseeing the development and deployment of AI technologies, a necessity given the rapid and unpredictable evolution of AI. To address these concerns and provide much-needed clarity, the government is anticipated to unveil a draft AI regulation framework in July. AI-driven threats such as misinformation, disinformation, and fake news transcend borders, impacting all countries and necessitating a transnational solution. The AI Safety Summit 2023 in the UK marked a significant step in uniting nations to understand and explore potential solutions. India and 27 other nations, including the UK, US, and EU, signed a joint declaration committing to collaborative efforts in assessing AI-related risks. Increased international collaboration is essential, not only for driving innovation and progress in AI but also for comprehending its effects on humanity and developing AI solutions to address them. Just as innovation in advancing AI models is encouraged, there should also be incentives for developing AI to mitigate threats posed by AI, thus contributing to a safer global environment. As 80 countries gear up for elections in 2024 amid the looming threats of misinformation and disinformation, empowering the public becomes imperative. Central to countering misleading content is fostering a psychological “herd immunity” through educational initiatives, nurturing critical thinking skills, and encouraging responsible sharing of information online. While governments and tech giants hold pivotal roles, individual users must also shoulder the responsibility for their actions in the digital realm.

Navigating the Minefield: Misinformation and disinformation in Indian elections Read More »

Agents of the largest democracy: the role, structure, and controversies around the Election Commission of India

Blog, Research Articles /

With India’s elections ongoing, questions have been raised about the independence of the Election Commission of India, the body responsible for administering them. Concerns about the Commission’s independence are not new, though there are small signs of progress. This year, the heat of summer in India is accompanied by the heat of its Lok Sabha elections. This is the lower house of the Indian parliament.  Whilst political party manifestos and public statements have been a hot topic, attention has also turned to the Election Commission of India (ECI), which is responsible for conducting fair and free elections. Recent changes to its appointment procedures and the resignation of two Election Commissioners in 2024 have led some to question its impartiality. India is not just the largest democracy in the world, but it is one of the most complex as well, given the linguistic, religious, regional and community aspirations involved.  Amidst this complexity, the Election Commission of India—an institution created under the Indian Constitution—plays a central role in superintending, directing and controlling elections in India. In addition to elections for Lok Sabha, the ECI is also responsible for elections to the Rajya Sabha (India’s Upper House), state legislatures, local councils, and even the offices of the President and the Vice-President of India. The commission consists of the Chief Election Commissioner (‘CEC’), who is the Chairperson of the Commission and is supported by several Election Commissioners (‘ECs’). There are also Regional Commissioners (at the state level), district magistrates designated as District Election Officers and even Booth Level Officers, showing the ECI operates all the way down to the most local level. The Indian Constitution sets out the broad functions and composition of the ECI, as well as the procedure for removing the CEC. However, until 2023, there was no framework in place for appointing Commission members, leaving the President to exercise powers of appointment on the advice of the council of ministers led by the Prime Minister. Questions around the ECI’s impartiality are not new. Historically, Councils of Ministers in the Indian Government from all parties have tended to advise the President on appointments based on their own political interests. Since the Constitution did not require multiple Commissioners, the ECI had only a single member (the CEC) until 1989. However, in October 1989 – just 10 days before General Elections were announced – the President, on the advice of PM Rajiv Gandhi’s government – appointed two new Commissioners. Gandhi’s party, the Indian National Congress, appeared to have caught wind of its ousting from government, wanted ‘their people’ in the ECI and so took the chance to limit the powers of the then CEC. When a new coalition government was formed under V.P. Singh in 1990, the President rescinded the earlier appointments, leaving only the CEC standing. When this was challenged in the Supreme Court of India, the Court found that the absence of rules relating to a multi-member Commission meant that the President retained discretion over appointments, exercised on the Government’s advice. A multi-member Commission was reintroduced in 1993. Another court challenge followed, amidst claims from the petitioner that this was intended to limit the powers of the then CEC T.N. Sheshan, renowned for being fearsomely strict though even-handed across parties. The challenge was dismissed, and the multi-member setup has remained in place since then. Despite this, neither the Court nor Parliament have made any attempt to change the appointment process, leaving it to the whims of politics. In 2023, the Supreme Court of India laid down the appointment procedure for the CEC and ECs. Appointments were now to be made by the President on the advice of a selection committee that included the Prime Minister (PM), Leader of Opposition in the Parliament (LOP), and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) – at least until Parliament formally legislated on the matter. This judicial creativity— resembling the system for judicial appointments or the appointment of the director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) – has received mixed reactions. Some hailed the courts as guardians of democracy, whilst others criticised them for judicial overreach. Following this, the Indian Parliament enacted legislation setting out a revised appointment procedure. The first appointments of the ECs under the new scheme were made in March 2024, after two former ECs resigned from their posts citing ‘personal reasons’. This marked the first time in the history of India’s democracy that the Opposition had been involved in selecting ECs. However, the revised procedure – which replaces the CJI with a Cabinet Minister – has been criticised for being tilted in the Government’s favour. The Supreme Court must examine the validity of the revised procedure, although this remains valid until it does so. Whilst India appears to have taken its first small steps towards a more independent election watchdog, there are concerns the UK is starting to move in the opposite direction. The same legislation that introduced Voter ID in 2022 gave the Government the power to determine the strategy and policy direction of the Electoral Commission. This government interference was criticised by the chair of the Electoral Commission, the Electoral Reform Society and not-for-profit group Unlock Democracy. Safeguarding the independence of elections in the UK requires a swift turn back from this mis-step. Whilst commentators the world over will rightly scrutinise the independence of elections in this, the ‘year of elections’, the Indian Supreme Court provides a note of reassurance, and perhaps caution, stating “that the Republic [of India] has prided itself in conducting free and fair elections for the past 70 years, the credit wherefor can largely be attributed to the ECI and the trust reposed in it by the public. While rational scepticism of the status quo is desirable in a healthy democracy, this Court cannot allow the entire process of the underway General Elections to be called into question and upended on mere apprehension and speculation.” Co-written by Pravar Petkar and Nitish Rai Parwani.

Agents of the largest democracy: the role, structure, and controversies around the Election Commission of India Read More »

india elections

Getting almost a billion voters to the polls: a look inside the 2024 Indian Elections

Blog, Research Articles /

With national elections having begun in India, this article shines a light on the complexities of organising an election for almost one billion voters, including the voting phases, access to poll booths and whether India’s electronic voting systems ensure a free and fair contest. It is co-written by a constitutional law academic from the UK and a trained lawyer from India with expertise on elections. In recent weeks, just under 50m voters in the UK have had poll cards pushed through their letterboxes, informing them of their nearest polling station for the upcoming local and mayoral elections. On 2 May 2024, they will head to the appointed place – usually a local sports club, community hall or other public building – mark a slip of paper with a pencil cross and cast it into the maw of a black plastic box. On the other side of the world, nearly 20 times this number have begun voting in the 2024 Indian parliamentary elections, the largest electoral exercise on this planet. But how in practice does a country like India get a billion voters to the polls, and how does voting take place?  The most obvious feature of the 2024 Indian elections is that – for reasons of practicality, more than anything else – they do not take place on one day: the General Election 2024 schedule published by India’s Election Commission indicates seven ‘phases’ taking place in consecutive weeks from Friday 19 April 2024 through to Saturday 1 June 2024. In 22 of India’s 28 states and 8 Union Territories, including Gujarat (26 constituencies) and Tamil Nadu (39 constituencies), there is one polling date for the entire state; in Bihar, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh, voting is spread across all seven weeks. Holding elections across multiple phases has been a consistent feature across all Indian parliamentary elections since India gained independence in 1947, and is mirrored to some extent in the primaries for the US presidential elections.   A second aspect of the logistical problem presented by the Indian parliamentary elections is ensuring access to polling booths. India’s electoral rules state that there should be a polling station for every 1500 voters, and no voter should be made to travel for more than 2km to cast their votes.  Voting in India has also long transcended the pencil and paper approach of the UK. After a series of pilot tests, Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) have replaced paper ballots throughout India since 2001, and after testing in several assembly elections, the ‘Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT)’ mechanism was added to the EVM from the 2019 General Election.  What happens on polling day? After security checks at the entrance of the polling station, voters face an ID check. A permanent ink mark is put on their finger (to show they have voted), and they are directed to the ballot unit which is protected by a screen to ensure confidentiality. The ballot unit usually has 16 buttons, each representing a candidate and their political party (if more than 16 candidates are running, then multiple ballot units are installed). Voters press a button on the ballot unit to cast their vote. The VVPAT machine then prints a slip showing the serial number, candidate name and party symbol selected by the voter. This is displayed in a glass window for 7 seconds to enable voters to verify their choices, completing the voting process.  According to the Election Commission, EVM units cannot be connected to any input source or third-party machines, ensuring their independence. EVMs also have a mechanism (the Unauthorised Access Detection Mechanism) that disables the machine immediately if anyone tries to tamper with it. Before each election in which they are used, all machines are tested, and a mock poll is conducted on 5% of the machines randomly selected by representatives of recognised political parties.  Research by the Brookings Institute suggests that EVMs have successfully contributed to the health of Indian democracy in three ways. First, EVMs have reduced electoral fraud. Because they control the rate of voting (four votes per minute), political party officials cannot physically ‘capture’ booths and rig the vote by filling boxes with paper ballots, and the presiding officer can close voting if issues arise. Second, EVMs improve electoral competition by reducing the vote shares of both incumbent and winning parties, an observation corroborated in more recently published research. Third, EVMs make it easier for marginalised groups to vote, as paper ballots can be a barrier to those who are illiterate or who have received less formal education. The study also indicates benefits in relation to efficiency, a vital consideration given the size of India’s electorate.  On 26 April 2024, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition urging either a return to full paper balloting, or that all VVPAT slips should be counted, describing in some detail the safeguards within the system. This reinforces earlier cases in which the Court upheld the credibility of the system, including another judgment earlier in 2024, and cases in 2017, 2018 and 2019.  The behemoth that is the Indian parliamentary elections will continue to rumble on for the next six weeks, its great silver voting machines zig-zagging their way across the vast expanses of the country. It is not until 4 June 2024, when all the votes have been counted and the results are announced, that the impact of the planet’s largest electoral exercise will be revealed to the world.  Co-written by Pravar Petkar and Nitish Rai Parwani.

Getting almost a billion voters to the polls: a look inside the 2024 Indian Elections Read More »

Britain needs Stronger Intelligence Cooperation with India ICFS

Britain needs Stronger Intelligence Cooperation with India

Blog, Research Articles /

Intelligence cooperation between the UK and India has a long history and remains a key component of the bilateral relationship. Like most intelligence relationships, there have been moments of highs and lows. However, moving ahead, the quality of this relationship can be strengthened by infusing a sense of equality into a relationship that has hitherto been viewed with a sense of power asymmetry favouring Britain.   Historical Evolution of India-UK Intelligence Relationship  The evolution of India-UK intelligence relationship can be observed in five phases. The first phase is the pre-independence period when the Indian intelligence bureaucracies were led by colonial Englishmen. The agencies focused on tackling threats from criminals, subversives, and revolutionaries, with the aim of solidifying British colonial rule in the subcontinent. Many of the tools and techniques of intelligence were learnt by India during this period.   The second phase began from the time of independence to the 1971 Indo-Pak war. During this period, the intelligence relationship strengthened over time. Since independence, even as the Indian political leadership sought to sever the umbilical cord between the Indian Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the British intelligence, interpersonal relationships between officers of the IB and the MI5 became a key driver for strengthening ties. After the 1962 India-China war, Britain became India’s key intelligence ally by sharing technical intelligence equipment, imparting analytical training to Indian intelligence personnel, and establishing some of India’s covert action agencies.  Although this period could be seen as the golden age of Indo-British intelligence relationship, the power asymmetry was palpable. British intelligence relationship with post-colonial states during this period was giving rise to a ‘commonwealth intelligence culture’. Although the post-colonial states certainly benefited from British tutelage, on balance, the relationships were just means for British influence in the regions and largely served Britain’s anti-communist agendas. London’s reserved approach towards Indian intelligence was reflective of this trend. Where skills related to anti-communism were required, such as counterespionage, British intelligence services were readily available. On other areas, however, help was less forthcoming.  The third phase emerged during the 1971 Indo-Pak war and lasted roughly till the 9/11 attacks. Geopolitical changes brought Britain closer to Pakistan and China whilst India became a key partner for the Soviet Union. Against this backdrop, Indo-British bilateral relations began plummeting. Britain even played host to several of Indian insurgent leaders causing discomfort in New Delhi. Despite this, intelligence relationship remained much stronger than between other organs of the government, driven mostly by the interpersonal relationships developed between intelligence officers over the years. Therefore, except on matters such as Kashmir and Pakistan where severe restrictions were placed by British policymakers, intelligence cooperation continued across several important matters.   The fourth stage was born after the 9/11 attacks and picked up steam after the 2005 London tube bombings. A Joint Working Group (JWG) on Terrorism was established and witnessed sharing of intelligence between the two countries. However, this relationship too was not without limitations since the key source of terrorism in India, i.e. Pakistan, was Britain’s ally. Additionally, London was restrained in its options given the large and active British Pakistani diaspora, which frustrated Indian counterterrorism efforts. Once again, Britain’s own interests dominated the Anglo-Indian intelligence relationship leaving disastrous consequences for India as seen in instances such as the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. Not only did Britain not share vital intelligence it had developed on the Lashkar-e-Taiba, but it also further insisted on India exercising restraint against Pakistan. The latter was motivated largely due to the presence of many British Pakistani citizens in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.  The Present and Future of UK-India Intelligence Cooperation  Whilst counterterrorism related intelligence cooperation continues, the present and fifth phase of the relationship is witnessing shifting priorities on both sides, particularly in Britain. Recognising the threat posed by China and emerging technologies, the UK has declared an Indo-Pacific tilt and desires leadership in artificial intelligence (AI). With respect to the Indo-Pacific, as most observers confess, Britain’s aspirations are larger than its ability to deliver. US Secretary of Defence, Lloyd Austin, also noted that Britain is ‘more helpful’ in the Euro-Atlantic space than in the Indo-Pacific. Such a scenario provides Britain with reason to strengthen relationship with India, and intelligence cooperation is one such area to foster deeper ties.  In the last few years, India has made considerable investments in naval power under the Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI) to develop a safe, secure, and stable maritime domain. Efforts have been taken to develop maritime domain awareness through creation of avenues such as Information Fusion Centre-Indian Ocean Region (IFC-IOR) hosted by the Indian Navy. When established in 2018, France became the first country to post a liaison officer at the IFC-IOR headquarters where non-classified information is exchanged. UK followed suit two years later, in 2021. The same year, the UK’s Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 21 held maritime training with the Indian Navy. However, as noted by the Defence Committee of the House of Commons, ‘Indian Navy received less benefit from this training then from its combined training with US Navy carrier groups’. The committee, thus, suggested that ‘the UK must be a reliable partner to India’. As the CSG 25 is set to arrive at Indian shores next year, there are hopes for positive developments.  On cyber and AI, modest efforts towards cooperation are beginning to emerge, although much of the AI related cooperation is seen in non-security domains. Critical infrastructure protection, prevention and deterrence of cyber-crime are areas that hold potential for greater India-UK intelligence sharing. However, hitherto cooperation is mostly happening under the aegis of multilateral frameworks such as UN led conventions and the International Counter Ransomware Initiative. Last year, there were explorations for bilateral cooperation with the visit of Lindy Cameron, CEO of the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) to India and meetings with key stakeholders, including India’s then National Cyber Security Coordinator, Lt Gen. Rajesh Pant. However, the real outcomes of these explorations are yet to be fully ascertained. There is, nevertheless, a clear indication of the availability of a talent pool

Britain needs Stronger Intelligence Cooperation with India Read More »

Why Ukraine and the West must resist Putin’s fuzzy logic ICFS

Why Ukraine and the West must resist Putin’s fuzzy logic

Blog, Research Articles /

This is part one of a three-part response to the Carlson-Putin interview.   The United Kingdom for all intents and purposes is at war with Russia.  Underlying all other points this must never be forgotten. To my mind Tucker Carlson has pulled off the interview of the year. He allowed Putin to speak, and some have claimed that this has allowed us to glimpse at the world through Putin’s weltanschauung: how he interprets the world, and Russia’s position in it. This could also be an incredibly naive position to take, as it implies that what Putin was telling us was what he believed – for which one must take a gigantic leap of blind faith over a chasm of lies and deception. Putin’s narrative had an altogether different intention. What it was remains opaque, but certainly not truthful.    No sooner had the interview been aired, western commentators began responding. The BBC: Tucker Carlson interview: Fact-checking Putin’s ‘nonsense’ history;1 Britain’s foreign policy think tank, Chatham House writes: ‘Putin’s Carlson interview shows the links between Trump talk and Russian messaging’;2 and Britain’s Guardian writes: ‘Tucker Carlson’s Putin interview wasn’t journalism. It was sycophancy’.3 Russian reactions were also loud. The Russian News Agency has articles with titles such as: ‘Putin’s interview with US journalist racks 150 mln views on X social network’;4 another wrote: ‘Criticism of Putin’s interview with Carlson designed to derail peace dialogue — German MP’;5 and ‘The Pope urges the West to listen to Putin and start negotiations with Russia without any preconditions,” Leonid Sevastyanov stressed’.6   In a liberal society, ideas and their counter ideas should be coming at us from all sides, allowing us to see the world from as many perspectives as possible. Of course, in reality it becomes almost impossible to see “the wood from the trees”. As a Director at the International Centre for Sustainability, based out of London, our very raison d’etre is to do exactly that – make sense of difficult things, from a view that is as objective as possible. Furthermore, we concern ourselves with everything that involves British (Western) and Indian interests – after all we are a centre that comments on both countries. Russia stands at a very perplexing intersection right in between Western and Indian interests. To my mind, it is worth noting the Pope’s first sentence, and maybe not his second one; namely that we ought to listen, and really listen attentively, with ample curiosity.  I have done exactly that. I have tried to listen and really understand the “Putinian worldview” with equal amounts of scepticism.     The first thing to note is that Putin presents a historical narrative. Here he rests on a vision of the historical territorial extent of Russia, using Orthodox Christianity as the binding agent, something which his regime wants to re-create.  This is essentially a state that is trying to claim legitimacy for its hostile actions from historicity. After taking us through a thousand-year history in 30 minutes, he leads us to the thrust of his argument, namely that Ukraine as a state essentially rests on a quasi, even superficial idea with shallow roots in modern history. He claims that Ukraine not so long ago denoted a people (Russian) who lived out on the frontiers – it was a geographical notion, not one of a separate identity. He also criticises Soviet leadership, especially Lenin and Stalin in creating an idea of Ukraine and Ukrainians as a separate region.  All this is particularly dangerous because Putin de-legitimises an entire nation, millions of people who may indeed have interwoven connections with Russianness but classify themselves as distinctly other.   The colonial British tried to do something similar in India. The British tried to convince themselves and everyone else, including the Indians that they were essentially a non-nation, and that they all belonged to completely distinct separate castes, tribes and clans. There was nothing that they could call India, if it were not for the British. Sir John Strachey who had spent many years in the subcontinent, and had once been the Governor General’s Council, gave a series of lectures at Cambridge University to an audience of ‘to-be’ civil servants of the raj. In this lecture he claimed that ‘India was merely a label of convenience, a name which we give to a great region including a multitude of different countries.’7  Strachey was so convinced by his own myopic experience that he said, ‘Scotland is more like Spain than Bengal is like the Punjab’.8 He wasn’t finished. He went on to say with all the hubris-induced self-conviction, ‘in India the diversities of race, language, and religion were far greater. Unlike in Europe, these countries were not nations; they did not have a distinct political or social identity… this is the first and most essential thing to learn about India – that there is not, and never was an India.’9 One wonders what Sir John Strachey would say now if he was to see modern India, unified, and steaming towards her hundred years of independence? The residue of these preposterous notions is still found in countless works of scholarship and worse still, in the attitudes of civil servants and the wider establishment in western nations. Just as the colonial British empire ultimately failed in concocting its false history, Putin too, with his dreams of a Russian Empire, is most likely to fail in de-legitimising Ukraine.   When I speak with Ukrainians, they are first to admit their close ties with Russia and the Russian people, but, they say, “we are Ukrainians, and we want to govern ourselves and protect and promote our own distinct culture and identity.” Certainly, Putin’s history, even if partially correct, does not justify his actions. If one were to follow Putinian ideas to their end, we would have perpetual war and conflict between nations. Just think for a moment if India started to think in the same way about Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or Sri Lanka. It would be nothing short of disaster for everyone concerned. India too,

Why Ukraine and the West must resist Putin’s fuzzy logic Read More »

Scroll to Top