Modi's double whammy for Kejriwal: 8th CPC and no tax up to 12 lakhs

Elections are supposed to be the lynchpin of a vibrant democracy, which thrives when the process is undertaken as a free and fair exercise and a level playing field is enabled for all actors involved, be it the electorate or the political constituents who seek to represent them.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has been accused by India’s leading opposition parties of failing to provide a level playing field in polls of the recent past. Such demands have come up in the ongoing campaign for the Delhi Assembly Elections as well, notwithstanding incidents like the EC raid on the Punjab chief minister’s residence in Delhi and reported checks on vehicles allegedly owned by the AAP-ruled Punjab government alleging attempts to influence voters.

Incidentally, no such checks were reported against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidates alleged to have been indulging in bribing voters.

Similar was the case of the differential treatment on statements by BJP leaders on pollution in the Yamuna and the one made by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) supremo, Arvind Kejriwal. This is besides the allegations from all quarters of suspected manipulation in the voters' list.   

Despite these systemic matters, the upcoming elections in Delhi are slated for a photo-finish, unlike in the previous two versions when AAP swept the polls. A major shift in the mood on the ground in favour of the BJP is likely to happen thanks to two significant policy measures that were initiated by the Modi government even after the polling and counting schedule for the Delhi elections.

The first was the announcement of the Eight Central Pay Commission (CPC) by the Union Government on 16 January 2025, exactly nine days after the announcement of the Delhi poll schedule on January 7th. As a scheme applicable for central employees across the country, the Modi government ensured that the announcement does not violate the model code of conduct in force for the Delhi elections.

However, the announcement came across as a clear political move, taking advantage of being the party in power at the centre. It was only the previous month that the Minister of State for Finance, Pankaj Chaudhury, had told the Rajya Sabha that there was no proposal to constitute the 8th CPC, as then demanded by various employees’ unions.  

The second was the dramatic announcement in the Union Budget on 1st February 2025 of massive tax cuts – including no tax up to Rs 12 lakhs income annually – that is essentially aimed at benefiting the ‘middle class’ long complaining about the high taxes in the country, which opposition parties had often termed as ‘tax terrorism.’

Without a doubt, both proclamations are destined to significantly influence the Delhi elections considering their impact on central government employees who form a sizeable population of the national capital, and probably the largest concentration for any state. Furthermore, the revised tax limit is also likely to benefit the second and third tiers of work workforce in the private sector who also have a significant presence in the capital city.

By pursuing two game-changing policies in the midst of an election, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has not merely denied his rivals the possibility of a level playing field in this crucial state election but also shows his indefatigability and desperation to attain political success.

Consequently, the AAP faces a strenuous test in its most critical political contest since its formation. Its challenges have mounted with the Indian National Congress (INC) seeking to regain lost ground in a state it ruled for three consecutive terms and ceded space to the AAP after its exit from power.

Besides the fact that the AAP has grown on the traditional Congress vote base in the last decade, the margin of its victory against BJP candidates in 2020 was largely in the 10,000-20,000 votes in most seats. Accordingly, if the Congress manages to regain some of its traditional vote base in many crucial seats, it could do so only at the Aam Adami Party’s cost and could result in a significant reduction of the latter’s vote share. 

The probable impact of these dynamics on the electoral outcomes of February 5th could be either AAP retaining power with a thin majority, BJP dramatically coming to power or even a hung assembly. 

----

Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code: A State-imposed social code?

The last of the key items on the Hindutva political mission – the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) – which envisions a single personal law for all citizens to adjudicate on matters like marriage, inheritance, divorce, adoption and so on, is now attaining form and fruition.

Article 44 of the Indian Constitution which deals with Directive Principles of State Policy enshrines that “the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” Despite this directive, successive governments have not managed to build a consensus on the need to push for a uniform civil code.

At the heart of the delay were the concerns among the minority communities – particularly Muslims, who have the Muslim Personal Law as per Shariat and Christian denominations which have multiple acts governing their marriage, inheritance and divorce, including the Canon law for Catholics, some of which carry over from the pre-independence days – that their religious rights will be curtailed by a common code.

Such concerns also seem to have been accentuated by the assumption that the common code could be framed on the basis of the social notions or codes mandated or articulated by the majority and dominant community, or the acts governing Hindus, in the country. That the BJP, and its earlier incarnation, the Jan Sangh, had vociferously demanded the UCC for many decades also adds to such fears of a uniform code being developed on the basis of Hindu ways of life, customs and practices.  

For their part, the personal laws for Hindus are covered through five legislations, which include: the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and the Hindu Disposition of Property Act, 1916, etc. Such a variegated list also necessitates a consolidation to enable uniformity across sub-cultures that span the country.

It is in this context that the current debate over the UCC has gained greater traction particularly with the BJP declaring it as a key agenda in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The BJP-ruled Uttarakhand has taken the plunge to become the first state to promulgate a UCC of its own – paradoxically creating a state-wise template that defeats the objective of a nationwide singular law.

What though has created consternation about the UCC campaign are two aspects:

(a)   the stringent codes in the Uttarakhand UCC that visibly manifest the ‘Hindu’ codes of public morality regarding matrimonial and social relationships but also the significant effort of the state to determine the ‘ideal’ social way of life for man and woman; and,

(b)   the manner in which the Waqf Amendment Act was passed by the Joint Parliamentary Committee, dominated by the ruling front members of parliament, without considering the voices of the opposition and imposing provisions that may not be palatable to the Muslim community.  

The Uttarakhand UCC has been panned for some of its ‘intrusive’ contents, particularly concerning the provisions covering ‘live-in’ relationships that are seen to be in dissonance with constitutional rights of privacy and personal liberty. However, a close look reveals not just a concerted effort to enforce a State-determined code of social life but also significant intrusions into personal liberty, especially in the realm of matrimony involving various stages of registration, documentation, imposition of customs, summary inquiry by officials and penal actions.

For instance, one provision in the UCC rules states that:

While conducting a summary inquiry relating to sub-section (1) of section 380 of the Code, if it is revealed that the registrant(s) has/have submitted a certificate of customs & usage that permits marriage between the registrants despite them being within the degrees of prohibited relationship, the Registrar shall verify from her/his own sources or from community heads or from religious leaders whether the customs & usage actually permit marriage between a woman and a man having identical relationship. If the Registrar comes to the conclusion that the customs & usage do not permit marriage between the registrants, she/he shall refuse to register the live-in relationship.  

The mere fact that the Code insists on a “certification of customs and usage that permits marriage between the registrants” is an evident effort to preclude the possibilities of inter-faith or inter-community matrimony relationships, which, in this case, is to be certified by a religious leader or community head.

Notwithstanding the possibility of religious or community leaders attesting to inter-community matrimonies, the Uttarakhand UCC even gives the flexibility to the officials to “verify from his/her own sources,” which gives ample scope for the state to infringe on personal liberty and choices of matrimony, particularly in societies or regions with a history of religious and caste-based divides or polarization. 

Equally significant is the primary given to permissibility of marriage, especially the religious sanction, although the Constitution allows consenting adults to enter into matrimonial alliance of their own accord. On the other hand, the Uttarakhand UCC stipulates that:

Proof of permissibility of Marriage between the Registrants if they are within the Degrees of Prohibited Relationship - A certificate issued by a religious leader/community head concerned or official of a religious/community body concerned that the customs & usage governing the party/parties to the marriage permit the marriage within the degrees of prohibited relationship as in Annexure – 1.

Another problematic reference is to the ‘degrees of prohibited relationship.’ Though the term is not seen to be explicitly defined in the opening sections, it has been used consistently across the Uttarakhand UCC. Around 37 relationships are prohibited that involve three generations of a family, which, according to reports, is not practically possible, like mother’s mother’s father's widow (great-grandmother) and daughter’s daughter’s son’s widow.

Another area of significant concern is the reference to public policy and morality which reinforces the objective of enforcing State-determined codes that are essentially of political nature. For instance, one paragraph in the UCC states that:

The parties are within the degrees of a prohibited relationship, and no custom or usage governing the parties to the marriage permits marriage between them, and even if permitted, such a marriage is against public policy and morality.   

While polygamy and child marriage have been prohibited by the UCC, it is alleged that provisions are based on the Hindu ideas of social morality that essentially outlaw or criminalize the personal laws and customary practices of religious minorities like Muslims. 

The manner in which this UCC was formulated by BJP-ruled Uttarakhand with least public consultations or taking into consideration the views of all sections concerned, and that other BJP-ruled states are slated to follow suit, will be a harbinger of things to come on this front.

Albeit UCC formulation and promulgation at the centre could be expected to be a stormy affair with a stronger opposition in the Lok Sabha. However, the way the Waqf Amendment Bill was bulldozed through in the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) might indicate the Modi government’s lack of inclination to build consensus for such contentious legislation, and instead use the majorities in both houses to push them through unilaterally.

More importantly, though, the Waqf Amendment episode indicated how the ruling regime was disinclined towards incorporating proposals by the opposition parties in the JPC and went to the extent of pushing through amendments that entailed even provisions like including non-Muslim members in the Waqf boards, thus illustrating the agenda for political intervention in the functioning of the boards.

While this might be on expected lines, this episode might be an indication that the process for a Uniform Civil Code at the centre could also be a unilateral exercise with a legislation that purely sticks to the Hindutva agenda and will be a recipe for further polarisation.

-----

After the opening blitz, Trump gets a reality check

Eventually, the mass deportations, and resultant chaos, the rest of the world feared could unleash itself on 20 January 2025, did not happen, at least the way it was expected to happen. President Donald Trump’s second tenure was inaugurated with great fanfare, despite the cold wave forcing the event indoors.

India’s Foreign Minister Dr S Jaishankar got a first-row seat right in front of the podium from where President Trump repeated much of the chest-thumping that was done throughout his campaign. Only, Jaishankar was also forced to get up and join the applause when Trump promised to implement tariffs against other countries and initiate mass deportation of ‘aliens,’ including Indians.

According to a Pew Research Center report of July 2024, Indians form the third largest group of illegal immigrants – at 7.25 lakhs – after the Mexicans and El Salvadorians.

While President Trump had signed the Executive Orders pertaining to identifying, detaining and deporting illegal immigrants – now formally described as ‘aliens’ – it is reported that India has at present agreed to take back around 18000 of them who have been identified as Indian citizens. This comes after thousands of arrests following numerous raids by US Immigrant and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials in purported ‘havens’ like factories, warehouses and even religious institutions, including gurudwaras, in order to flush out the ‘aliens.’

Even as the Trump administration initiated around 21 actions on immigrants that also involved overhauling the immigration system, the initial actions also resulted in deportations undertaken by US military aircraft to South American countries.

A sideshow happened when Colombia refused permission for two US aircraft carrying deportees to land in Bogota, reportedly in protest against the undignified manner in which the illegal immigrants were brought home, allegedly in handcuffs. However, the stand-off was reportedly defused after the Colombian government agreed to send its own aircraft to fetch its citizens on illegal stay in the US. Bogota’s backing down was reportedly over Trump’s tariff threats.

However, that endgame did not seem to have worked with other countries sharing borders with the US. Following the Trump Administration’s imposition of 25 percent additional tariff on goods coming in from Canada and Mexico (along with a 10 percent against China), both Canada and Mexico have responded in kind by imposing tariffs on US goods as well, while China is reportedly mulling similar measures in retaliation.    

Last heard, a rattled Trump dialled up the Mexican President and announced a one-month pause to the US tariffs following the latter agreeing to deploy over 10,000 troops on the US-Mexico border to stop the tide of illegal migrants and drugs. Following the Mexican breakthrough, Trump has made multiple calls to the Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau  which led to a late-night breakthrough on February 3rd with Trump halting the Canadian tariffs also for one month.

In other words, Trump’s White House and Foggy Bottom are seemingly on an overdrive to defuse the impending trade war that he had himself triggered.

The series of tit-for-tat events and Trump’s evidently panic reactions – by calling up the heads of the two immediate neighbours – clearly embodies how reality seems to have quickly set in for the new administration.

All the rabble-rousing during the US presidential election campaign and inaugural speech might have gone down well with his domestic constituency. However, President Trump might be waking up to the realization that imposing tariffs will not be a one-way street and that trade wars will also badly affect the US economy. After all, it was the US which had historically been the pallbearer for globalization, and its first and foremost beneficiary, until other countries, particularly the Asian and third-world economies began to reverse the tide.  

The Indian government, for its part, has taken pre-emptive action by cutting down duties on foreign-origin motorbikes, a move clearly intended to signal a truce on the Harley Davidson issue which Trump had raised even during his first tenure. The salvaging mission is destined to be further buttressed with Prime Minister Narendra Modi slated to visit the US by the first fortnight of this month.

The trip, evidently an act of desperation, will be PM Modi’s concerted effort to placate the US president on matters of Indian tariffs and illegal immigrants residing in the US.

While negotiations on tariffs could be workable, the question of repatriating illegal Indian nationals in the US back to India could be a hard nut to crack. After all, Gujarat, Modi’s home state, remains a major origin of illegal immigrants trying to cross over into the US.

-----

Will India’s civilizational history be rewritten?

Archaeology has attained major importance in recent years in the Indian political landscape, particularly after the Ram Mandir verdict and ongoing calls to undertake excavations below disputed structures in the Indo-Gangetic plains.

However, the landmark archaeological findings of recent weeks in Tamil Nadu not only portend a significant milestone in the understanding of India’s civilizational history but also have the potential for their rewriting or fresh interpretations, with far-reaching political, cultural and academic implications. 

Recent excavations in various parts of Tamil Nadu have recovered artefacts and other remnants, including pottery and foundry, which revealed, through advanced carbon dating technology, that the Iron Age originated in Tamil Nadu, before it dawned in the rest of the world, during the third and fourth centuries BCE. Incidentally, the Indus Valley civilization, which was hitherto assumed to have preceded the Dravidian civilization, was then undergoing a parallel copper age. 

The findings were brought out in a report titled Antiquity of Iron: Recent Radiometric Dates from Tamil Nadu, authored by K Rajan, a professor at the Department of History at Pondicherry University, and Sivanantham, a joint director of the Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology. According to the Report, “the scientific dates securely placed the introduction of iron in Tamil Nadu in the time bracket of 2953 BCE and 3345 BCE.”

While it was assumed until now that the Iron Age could have occurred in India in the Indus Valley Civilisation during the 1500 and 2000 BCE period, the excavations from Tamil Nadu have proven the origin of the Iron Age as far back as 3000 BCE.

The implications of these findings are seen to be not just earth-shaking but with major political implications. For, the origins of Hinduism have quite often been identified, particularly among the Hindutva segments, with the Indus Valley Civilisation and the Harappan community set up by the Aryans often being projected as the foundation of Indian and Hindu culture. This is notwithstanding the debates about the origins and antiquity of Aryans and Dravidians and their respective role in shaping both the civilization and the religion.

No wonder then that M.K. Stalin, the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, and presently the indisputable Dravidian spearhead, has thrown the gauntlet by using the Report to claim that the “Iron Age began on Tamil soil 5300 years ago.” Claiming that the Report is a “gift from Tamil land to humankind,” the Tamil Nadu CM seems to have only stopped short of expounding the civilizational origins of the Indian nation.

While the BJP and other national parties are yet to emphatically respond to the Report and its historical import, the silence might only be the calm before the storm.  
 

Follow us on WhatsApp: https://www.whatsapp.com/
channel/0029Vb2MGE66xCSYBQlozV21

Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/
profile.php?id=100073685446941