Author: Biplob Das

The ‘economy’ is an elusive term. In all its intricacies and grandiosity, this complex webwork that carries flows of money, people, and capital almost resembles a colourful living being. It breathes, expands and sometimes utterly collapses under its own weight. We can try to keep it healthy and enjoy the opulence it provides or we can entagle ourselves in greed and ruin its capacity to give. The world as we witness it today is marred with concerns around our economy on the world stage and at home. The 23rd Issue of Open axis explores the humanity of the economy and attempts to address the concerns of our times. 

There are pertinent conversations to be had about how the ‘othering’ of social groups through language and food, the tense political climate and a rapid tide of digital modernity have affected growth and prices in the country, touching every part of our lives. The world beyond our borders is also going through an eerily turbulent time with war on the European continent and deep political uncertainty in South Asia. As we carry on the nascent memory of the toughest times during the pandemic into a new era, our writers take on the challenge of joining these conversations with grit and insight. 

To begin with, Rutuparna Deshpande writes on the state of socio-political data in the country, investigating the new draft data policy and open government data websites that collect citizen data from everyday operations of government agencies. Furthermore, he explores the facets behind researchers’ distrust of this data, and what the consequences of that may be. 

With the ongoing economic crisis in Sri Lanka, Shree Bhattacharyya does a deep dive into the representation of South Asia by the western media and inspects the neglect, possible biases, and lack of adequate coverage that may be seeping into media attention of South Asia. In line with our constant efforts to cover the Russia-Ukraine crisis, Maahira Jain writes on the current condition of Ukrainian refugees, their treatment by other countries in the west, and jarring similarities to the refugee treatment during other global crises. 

Micheal Kugelman, Deputy Director of the Asia Program and Senior Associate for South Asia at the Wilson Center writes on the soaring oil prices in India, and the relation of this inflation with the growing political instability in South Asia. 

The last month has seen some of the most brutal cases of minority targeting across the country, be it the violence of Ram Navami or the banning of meat shops during Hindu festivals. Maya Sharma from NDTV writes on the current state of communal politics in Karnataka, and how the ruling government is turning a blind eye toward minority hatred. In ‘Hindutva’s Narrowing Scope,’ Akanksha Mishra writes on the ideology behind Hindutva, and how the crux of the ideology is primarily upper-caste and Brahmanical, hiding behind a farce of unity. 

In ‘India’s Beef With Meat,’ Lakshay Sharma delves into the politics of food in India, and how food has transformed from a gesture of love and care, into a vehicle of communal disharmony. At the intersection of food with the economy, Jaidev Pant writes of the factors promoting the economic growth of third-party aggregators in the food delivery industry, and how these may be coming at the cost of restaurant sales and exploitation. 

Fahad Hasin writes on India’s economic prospects in light of the growing majoritarianism in the country. He argues that rather than hampering the economy, proper economic growth could overshadow and further mask the rising religious polarisation.

Amit Shah recently stated that Hindi should become the common language that different states communicate in, replacing English. While the statement has invited considerable criticism from the opposition, there is also a need to critically engage with such a proposal. Biplob Kumar Das writes the about the problems with enforcing Hindi as the sole official language of India. Reya Daya writes on the need for gendered policy making and implementing provisions specific to the needs of girls when it comes to education with regards to the recently implemented Early Warning System.

Unboxing libertarian ideology in right-wing thought, Rutuparna Deshpande writes on the concept of freedom is often stretched beyond its meaning.

We hope our 23rd issue is able to shed some light on the intricacies of the economy, culture, religion, and all its complex intersections.

• Biplob Kumar Das, Jaidev Pant, Lakshya Sharma, Maahira Jain, Reya Deya, Rutuparna Deshpande, & Shree Bhattacharyya

In the 37^th meeting of the Committee of Parliament on Official Language, held on the 9^th of April, Union Home Minister Amit Shah, who is the chairperson of the committee, stated that Hindi should replace English as the only nationwide official language. He said, “Now the time has come to make the Official Language an important part of the unity of the country. When citizens of states who speak other languages communicate with each other, it should in the language of India.” The statement led to considerable debate in public discourse, with Opposition leaders, especially from the Eastern and Southern regions, criticising Shah for the same.

This is not the first time Shah has proposed that Hindi should be the sole official language of the country. On the occasion of Hindi Diwas in 2019, Shah had proposed “One Nation, One Language”, saying that “it is absolutely essential that the entire country has one language that becomes the identity of the nation. If there is any language that can tie the whole country in one thread…it is Hindi.”

Shah’s statements not only shed light on the BJP’s ideological imagination of India but also crystallises the broader intentions with which this dispensation functions. The rhetoric of this kind is in continuation with other cultural markers, such as food, and clothing, that BJP is attempting to Hinduise and Hindi-ise. Yet any statement made for the proposal to push for a singular official or “national” language, irrespective of how fleetingly it was made, demands serious and critical engagement beyond political rhetoric.

For such critical engagement, it is crucial to revisit the history of official languages in our country. The Constituent Assembly had accepted the Munshi-Ayyangar formula, which proposed that Hindi will be the official language of India but English will also be used for official purposes till 1965. The intention was to phase out the use of English in the meantime and give Hindi its promised primacy after 15 years.

A crucial turning point for the primacy given to Hindi changed with the setting up of the State Reorganisation Commission in 1952. In 1956, the Commission’s report recommended the states be primarily demarcated on the basis of language among other administrative considerations. This was in continuation of the resolution adopted by the Indian National Congress in 1927 for the redistribution of provinces on a linguistic basis. Naturally, linguistic sub-nationalism gained unprecedented strength within states created on a linguistic basis, such as Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Maharashtra. The government thus passed the Official Languages Act in 1963 to implement the continuation of English for official purposes beyond the stipulated year of 1965. This was not sufficient for the non-Hindi states, especially the then Madras state, where mass protests including widespread violence spread from January to March of 1965. It was after repeated assurances by Prime Minister Shastri that Hindi would not be imposed, and an amendment to the Official Languages Act, did the protests in Madras dissipated, and English continued to stay as a language for official purposes alongside Hindi.

At this juncture it is important to question, why was there a demand in the first place for a singular “national” or “official” language? The answer lies in the understanding of a nation as a culturally and linguistically united group. This notion is found as far back as in mid-19^th century Europe where German philosopher JG Fichte had argued that the basis of a nation should be a common language and culture. Herein, a nation is imagined as a monolithic entity which is united in its culture, and centralised administratively.

In India, leaders from the Hindi speaking states, primarily Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan, felt the need for English to be replaced as it was a symbol of imperialism. Yet the fact that English had evolved into a language of official communication, especially between the Hindi speaking states and non-Hindi speaking states was overlooked. The notion of a nation as a monolithic entity where language is imposed has been both tried and failed, especially in culturally diverse countries. Belgium, Canada, and Spain stand as examples. However, a monolithic and homogenous idea of a nation continues to live on in the BJP’s ecosystem of ideas, as reflected by Shah’s statement.  

In a post-independent context, the imposition of Hindi would inevitably result in the hegemony of the northern states over the rest of the country. It would unfairly disadvantage people from the non-Hindi states; they would have to learn an extra language, and would inevitably be lagging behind Hindi states in prospering professionally. In the use of English, a foreign language imposed by a colonial administration that has left the country, people from northern and southern states find themselves on par with each other. The removal of English as an official language disrupts this equilibrium. The irrefutable fact is that English today has developed into a language of convenience in communication apart from having an aspirational value. It is more rapidly learnt than ever before because of social media, and it is an undeniable vehicle of social mobility. Hence, before English is removed as an official language of India, the Union Government has to evaluate to what extent Hindi can compete with English in bringing more economic and cultural prosperity to the country.

The solution hence rests in being open to the idea of facilitating multilingualism. Literary critic GN Devy rightly says that “the current practice of clubbing together multilingual spaces with monolingual habitats is not fair to the large cities today. The language choice of citizens should be widened and not narrowed by the state. If there is a mechanical and monolithic idea of unity followed by any entity, such an entity generally generates great hostility beyond its immediate borders.” This argument also holds true for rural India, where the government has to play a crucial role in allowing the youth the option to learn English apart from their mother tongue, rather than restricting it so that they have the opportunity to compete equally with the youth from the cities.

The alternative to this is to shift our attention to improving the economy. If we imagine India to be a global economic power, forcefully strengthening one identity will only lead to internal resistance and unfairly disadvantage a large part of the country. Instead, economic progress and technological advancements, followed by cultural self-reliance are the only ways to ascertain that Indian languages are able to strengthen themselves.

Biplob Kumar Das is a Graduate Student in Ashoka University currently pursuing an Advanced Major in Political Science and a Minor in Media Studies. He completed his undergraduate degree in Political Science and takes keen interest in anything related to Indian politics, media and culture.

Picture Credit: Mint

We publish all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noderivatives license. This means any news organisation, blog, website, newspaper or newsletter can republish our pieces for free, provided they attribute the original source (OpenAxis).

With the onset of the Coronavirus pandemic and the expansion of digital services, one of the newest trends has been the burgeoning of food ordering via delivery services. Isolated at home with not much to rejoice about, people across the world took to ordering food to spice up the monotony of everyday life. In India, 61% of Indians in urban metros prefer home-dining services post the pandemic induced lockdowns, owing to factors such as hygiene and sanitation standards. Additionally, the vigorous and creative social media vision adopted by third-party aggregators, such as Zomato, has contributed to a steady rise in food ordering via such apps and services. 

Earlier this month, one of India’s leading food delivery firms Zomato announced a new delisting policy that would allow restaurants associated with the app to be delisted or removed from the app in cases of complaints regarding food quality such as rotten food, order mix-ups, etc. The policy, which was earlier set to be implemented on 18th April, was temporarily halted after interventions from the National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI) and severe backlash from the 500,000 restaurants listed under it. Such a draconian policy, devised without any official backing and awarding undue authority to food delivery partners brings to light the complex relationship between food aggregators and restaurants in India. 

Globally, restaurants have to pay delivery partners a commission of anywhere between 25-and 30%. Similar figures are at play in India, with restaurants paying a commission  of around 18%  to the aggregators. Furthermore, as of the new GST structure enforced since January 1st, food delivery apps collect a 5% GST from the restaurants and deposit it with the government on behalf of the restaurant. While this may be seen as a strategic move to prevent tax evasion by successful players in the restaurant world, it has a significant impact on smaller restaurants with annual revenues of less than 20 lakh, as they would now be liable to pay taxes to the third-party aggregators. 

One can argue that initiatives such as Zomato Wings, launched by the food-tech giant in 2021 which aims to help procure funding for cloud kitchens and restaurants by connecting them to suitable investors and strengthening their brand position are a boon to smaller ventures. However, such initiatives heavily increase restaurant dependence on third-party aggregators. As per a recent report, cloud kitchen numbers are expected to soar as high as 2 billion dollars by 2024. While such statistics and other trends of consumers preferring home dining services are indicative of a larger shift to cloud kitchens, such delivery kitchens cannot offer everything a restaurant can, and often strip away agency from dine-in restaurants. 

For instance, dine-in restaurants are able to develop effective and long-lasting relationships with their customers over time to ensure steady inflow and revenues. However, with the shift to cloud kitchens and delivery services, dine-in restaurants are likely to lose long-term customer loyalty, given that customers have minimal to no exchanges with the restaurant directly. Further, there is no scope for customizing orders to the extent that was possible in dine-in facilities, and the changing delivery partners with every order do not make things easier. 

The lack of direct consumer interaction with restaurants manifests itself as a problem when aggregators use the information received from customers as a means to propel their own services and labels, as was exemplified through the complaint filed by the NRAI against India’s dominant food delivery players, Zomato and Swiggy. On 7th April, India’s chief competition regulator, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) ordered an investigation into Zomato and Swiggy operations upon claims of unfair allegations. These include claims of the food-tech giants hiding consumer data from restaurants, not taking any accountability in cases of customer complaints, issues regarding price parity, and indirect coercion to enter into exclusive contracts with aggregators by way of a lower listing commission. Restaurants that refuse such a contract are then charged commissions as high as 30%. 

In the past, there have been numerous accounts of backlash from multiple stakeholders and civil society regarding certain malpractices adopted by platforms such as Zomato and Swiggy, the most recent being the flak for implementing a 10-minute delivery policy that would significantly endanger riders’ safety and potentially violate traffic rules. There have also been complaints about the lack of social security for workers in the gig economy, particularly in the delivery sector. While these are crucial to ensure workers’ welfare in an economy as fragile as the gig economy, there are other crucial aspects related to the restaurant industry that must be addressed to ensure welfare for other workers engaged in the business as well. 

There is no denying that third-party aggregators are of great importance to the restaurant industry in today’s world. However, there is a need for an inherent investigation into their practices and the heavy power imbalance in this complex relationship. This deep-dive is particularly important given the steep increase in fares on commodities such as fuel, which will most definitely impact delivery services over the coming months. Therefore, it will be interesting to see what the future holds in store for third-party aggregators, and what the results of the CCI probe yield. While the probe is just an appetizer of the restaurant world finally voicing its concerns, the main course is hopefully yet to arrive.

Jaidev Pant is a third-year student of Psychology and Media at Ashoka University. He is interested in popular culture and its intersections with politics, gender, and behavior.

Picture Credits: VCCircle 

We publish all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noderivatives license. This means any news organisation, blog, website, newspaper or newsletter can republish our pieces for free, provided they attribute the original source (OpenAxis).

Everytime we put food on our plates, we might think about its plating or its taste. We sometimes even try to guess the spices or the ingredients that have been used in cooking a meal. Food, and conversations around food, however, do not end there. Every piece of food on your plate holds a deep cultural significance. Therefore, using food as a point of polarization becomes much easier.

This conversation is sparked by the recent meat ban by Mayors of Delhi Government on the occasion of Navratri. They cited concerns around vegetarianism and purity around the festive season as the grounds for closing meat shops. Purity is often used synonymously with food diets, but who decides purity? What does purity even mean?

The sense of purity is deeply entwined with the sense of religion around which the entire idea of current political polarization exists. Food, in many ways, represents religion and religious practices. Many religious customs are centered around food offerings and sacrosanctity of food. The recipes of delicacies travel down generations and act as a link to one’s ancestry and background. This link to background transcends food from nutrition to a symbol of identity.

Points of differences become points of polarization and communal differentiation when we change the narrative to identity from identities. Food is a cultural symbol. It means different things to different peoples. The attacks at Kaveri Hostel, JNU was not an attack on any dietary practise or religion, but on the purity of an entire lifestyle. 

Meat is culturally believed to be something “not-indian”, being culturally different, it is supposedly assumed to be the direct opposite of “indian”. Since, indian is ours, it is pure and meat-eating, therefore, impure. This entire idea rests on the basic belief that meat-eating is not a traditionally Indian idea. Reports in The Conversation,and Scroll, beg to differ. India had a long history of meat and beef eating. The question therefore arises, Why now? Why purity?

Food has become synonymous with ‘identity’. It reflects the person, their caste, class, religion, background. It is as much a symbol of identity as hijab. And as a symbol of identity, it is defined in the binaries of ‘our’ and ‘other’. In an attempt to squash everything that is not “our”, food also comes under the items-to-be-squashed.

Food, however, is also different from all other aspects of polarization. It is a necessity of human life. It is not something that can be given up to please the status quo. It is a habit of a lifetime, it cannot be changed overnight. Moreover, why does it even need to be changed? To stay alive? To stay uninjured? This is the dichotomy of the situation. You cannot have food and you cannot give up food, and you need to stay alive. You need to be connected to your ancestry, your culture. 

Food, for many, is the only inheritance they ever receive. Dividing food in the binary of purity, is calling an entire culture impure, when the very notion of purity is shaken within the community making the judgment. Polarizing on meat is not just religious polarization but also fuelling the age-old caste polarization. For many castes, including dalits, meat is a very important part of their diets and culture. Banning meat is also banning them under the idea of building a common Hindu nation. 

Moreover, the situation is both ironic and not, because the ban and attacks are centered around communities who are both economically and socially disadvantaged. The ban is going to attack low level producers of meat who depend on it for both their financial and dietary needs. Moreover banning of such stores will affect offal production that is consumed by lower caste ‘hindus’. If on one look, the decision seems as a ban on one community’s diet, it is not. It is a move to financially, culturally, emotionally, and nutritionally affect communities of every religion. 

It might seem as a shock that something as basic as food can cause riots and attacks. But food is anything but basic, yet a basic need for sustenance. If the politics of food becomes this evident and out rather than playing in subtly, we need to analyze where is our politics of polarization headed.

Lakshya Sharma is a first year undergraduate student at Ashoka University. He is an economics and media studies student. Apart from his academic interests, he has keen interest in writing and fashion.

Picture Credits: News24

We publish all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives license. This means any news organisation, blog, website, newspaper or newsletter can republish our pieces for free, provided they attribute the original source (OpenAxis).