Speaker 1: In this episode, we talk about former Bangladesh Prime Minister
Speaker 1: Shehai Casina, who conducted her first virtual media interaction since
Speaker 1: her auster and said that she will return to her country.
Speaker 1: We also talk about the Cast census and how cast
Speaker 1: data will be recorded in an open ended manner instead
Speaker 1: of having a pre defined list to choose from.
Speaker 2: But first we talk about.
Speaker 1: An Indian Express investigation into a new government fund meant
Speaker 1: to support India's deep tech ambitions. Hi, I am Aherikan
Speaker 1: Nanda and you are listening to three things the in
Speaker 1: an Express news show. It was last year that the
Speaker 1: government set up a fund to provide financial support to
Speaker 1: companies and startups working on cutting edge research in critical
Speaker 1: technology areas such as AI, semiconductors, quantum technology, robotics, healthcare
Speaker 1: and even defense. This was the Research Development and Innovation Fund. Now,
Speaker 1: the government has introduce used funds and schemes for similar
Speaker 1: purposes in the past as well. But what stood out
Speaker 1: about the RDI fund was the size of its corpus.
Speaker 3: It created a corpus of rupees one lack corore and
Speaker 3: its focus was these deep tech companies, the companies that
Speaker 3: were engaged in research and development in these deep tech areas.
Speaker 1: That's the intet expresses Amitapsinha, who writes on science and
Speaker 1: tech for the paper, and he says a fund like
Speaker 1: this is particularly important for the sector because it is
Speaker 1: inherently high risk.
Speaker 3: These companies are trying to create technologies for the future
Speaker 3: and there are very high chances of failure, because of
Speaker 3: which these companies often find it very difficult to raise
Speaker 3: money from the markets in a normal manner. Because our
Speaker 3: venture capital ecosystem is not that mature, it's still very
Speaker 3: risk overs and therefore these companies often find it very
Speaker 3: difficult to raise resources.
Speaker 1: And so this is why the government stepped in and
Speaker 1: decided to provide low cost loans to these companies for
Speaker 1: an extended period of time. And in its first round,
Speaker 1: the RDI Fund approved almost twenty two hundred corore in
Speaker 1: soft loans to twenty two private companies. But our investigation
Speaker 1: by the Indien Expresses found that fifteen of these twenty
Speaker 1: two companies have investment links to seven members of the
Speaker 1: fund's selection committee. In fact, together these firms received about
Speaker 1: sixty two percent of the total amount cleared. So to
Speaker 1: understand what exactly did the investigation find and what safeguards
Speaker 1: are needed when public money is routed through panels made
Speaker 1: up for private sector experts. My colleague Shasharma talks to
Speaker 1: The Indien Express's Amitabsina, who led this investigation for the paper.
Speaker 2: With the at a glance, this investigation is about the
Speaker 2: links between the people deciding where this public money goes
Speaker 2: and the companies that ultimately received it. So could you
Speaker 2: help us understand what the investigation found.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 3: So, the first round of funding from the RDI fund
Speaker 3: was recently completed thirtieth of April, and in that round,
Speaker 3: twenty two companies were selected for funding and loans worth
Speaker 3: a total of about twenty two hundred corores were finalized
Speaker 3: across all these companies. Now, the selected companies are all
Speaker 3: quite credible. A lot of them have actually already made
Speaker 3: a name for themselves. Several of them are pretty well
Speaker 3: known from this space sector, from healthcare, from in the
Speaker 3: quantum technologies sector. But there was a red flag, and
Speaker 3: the red flag was that fifteen of these twenty two
Speaker 3: selected companies were those in which one or more selection
Speaker 3: committee members had financial stakes. Now this selection committee members
Speaker 3: are from the private sector themselves, so theyre all are
Speaker 3: quite repute. And some of them recognizable names from the
Speaker 3: private sector. In fact, most of them are from the
Speaker 3: same technology ecosystem from which the startup applicants also come right. So,
Speaker 3: and this was done deliberately. It was thought that people
Speaker 3: who know that ecosystem would be the best to choose
Speaker 3: their right kind of companies. So it was deliberately done.
Speaker 3: But what happened was that this led to a sort
Speaker 3: of a conflict of interest kind of situation.
Speaker 2: And so did this system anticipate these kinds of conflicts?
Speaker 3: Yes, this kind of situation was very well foreseen, and
Speaker 3: there were rules to deal with no conflict of interest,
Speaker 3: and following those rules, in fact, the members, all those
Speaker 3: members who had a conflict of interest, they declared that
Speaker 3: interest and recused themselves from the evaluation process of these companies. So,
Speaker 3: to be fair, there was no wrongdoing that happened in
Speaker 3: this round, but there was still a red flag. There
Speaker 3: was still question marks because the problem was if so
Speaker 3: many companies, if fifteen of twenty two selected companies and
Speaker 3: that's almost like seventy percent of the companies had links
Speaker 3: with the selection committee members, you know, that can possibly have,
Speaker 3: you know, lead to a situation when people start doubting
Speaker 3: the process itself or that can create doubts in the system.
Speaker 3: So especially no, if you imagine companies that did not
Speaker 3: get selected, for example, now there is a possibility that
Speaker 3: they begin suspecting that they did not make it, mainly
Speaker 3: because they did not have anyone in the selection panel.
Speaker 3: So again not saying that this happened, but there is
Speaker 3: sort of a systemic vulnerability which the investigation was trying
Speaker 3: to highlight that optically this did not seem right and.
Speaker 2: Amob as you mentioned earlier, that it isn't that these
Speaker 2: companies were necessarily undeserving or that the panel members manipulated
Speaker 2: the process. So when we talk about a conflict of
Speaker 2: interest in this case, what exactly do we mean?
Speaker 3: Right, So, as we discussed, the companies that have been
Speaker 3: selected are quite credible, some of them well known as well.
Speaker 3: Also the people in this selection panel, they are pretty
Speaker 3: well known people. So you know, this matter actually came
Speaker 3: up in the Raja Saba also for discussion and it
Speaker 3: was brought in the Raja Saba by Congress MP Praveen
Speaker 3: Chakaworthy and even Praveen Chakroworthy when we were talking to him,
Speaker 3: he said, you know, he's absolutely casting no aspersions on
Speaker 3: any individual or any company. There was nothing that has
Speaker 3: happened in the first round of funding which can be
Speaker 3: described as wrongdoing. What he was highlighting and what the
Speaker 3: purpose of the investigation also was pointed to a systemic
Speaker 3: vulnerability and to explore with you know, additional safeguards were
Speaker 3: required to be put in place because we are dealing
Speaker 3: with public money. A large amount of public money is
Speaker 3: at stake. And although you know, mandatory recusal transparency is
Speaker 3: the standard practice in conflict of interest kind of situations,
Speaker 3: and that is also is very well addressed here. But
Speaker 3: because this is about public money, should there be extra
Speaker 3: guard rails that need to be put in place. So
Speaker 3: that is the where the debate is that, you know,
Speaker 3: should we have more safeguards when we are dealing with
Speaker 3: public money because this conflict of interest kind of situations
Speaker 3: they arise. You know, they are pretty common in the
Speaker 3: corporate world as well, and that's the standard practice to
Speaker 3: deal with them is to recuse yourself from the decision
Speaker 3: making process. But here we are dealing with public money,
Speaker 3: and that's the debate all about.
Speaker 2: Right, the rules require members to mandatorily recuse themselves from
Speaker 2: the entire process of evaluation of companies in which they
Speaker 2: or their immediate families or their funds have any interest in.
Speaker 2: And you know, this brings us to an obvious dilemma.
Speaker 2: I heard. So, if you want the country's best deep
Speaker 2: tech investors or entrepreneurs deciding which technologies to fund, aren't
Speaker 2: those same people almost inevitably going to have connections across
Speaker 2: this ecosystem because India's deep tech ecosystem remains relatively small.
Speaker 3: Yes, exactly. So that's the argument that is being given
Speaker 3: the fact that if you want the best people to
Speaker 3: select these companies, and the best people are part of
Speaker 3: that same ecosystem, they have known that ecosystem for a
Speaker 3: very long time, they have been part of it, they
Speaker 3: have backed these companies, they have invested in these companies,
Speaker 3: so they know these companies very well. And you have
Speaker 3: picked these people to select the company. So obviously these
Speaker 3: people would have connections in that ecosystem, they would know
Speaker 3: these companies, and they would have financial interest in these companies.
Speaker 3: So the precise reason for which you picked them to
Speaker 3: be part of this election panel would lead to this
Speaker 3: kind of conflict of interest situation. So, because this was
Speaker 3: inevitable and a lot of members. We spoke to all
Speaker 3: these people concerned, and we've also spoken to the government
Speaker 3: officials everyone who was concerned with this process, and all
Speaker 3: of them said that this kind of situation was no
Speaker 3: anticipated and it was very well foreseen that such a
Speaker 3: situation would arise, and that's why conflict of interest rules
Speaker 3: were the first rules that were drafted when they were creating,
Speaker 3: you know, this process. So it was very well anticipated,
Speaker 3: and you know, the member said, we knew that such
Speaker 3: a thing would happen, and therefore we have taken care
Speaker 3: to ensure that there is transparency and there are very
Speaker 3: strict rules, you know, recusing yourself and disclosing your interests
Speaker 3: and so amitov.
Speaker 2: If disclosure and ricusal aren't considered sufficient, what would a
Speaker 2: stronger system actually look like without stripping the Committee of
Speaker 2: the industry expertise it needs.
Speaker 3: Now, after the investigation came out, you know, the government
Speaker 3: also reacted very swiftly, and then they tried to explain
Speaker 3: why some additional safeguards were already in place, and then
Speaker 3: they said, look, we select the companies with a super majority.
Speaker 3: Super majority meaning you know, at least two thirds majority
Speaker 3: of the selection committee members. So only if two thirds
Speaker 3: majority agrees, then only a company is selected. So even
Speaker 3: if two or three people have doubts about a company,
Speaker 3: and these doubts can be about anything, these doubts can
Speaker 3: be about, you know, the financial interests of other members
Speaker 3: of the committee, then the company is not chosen. They
Speaker 3: also spoke about the fact that, you know, if any
Speaker 3: of these Selection Committee members, if they own a company,
Speaker 3: or they operate a company, or if they have substantial
Speaker 3: you know, stake in a company, those companies are not
Speaker 3: even eligible to become an applicant. Similarly, if they have
Speaker 3: any operational role in a company, then that company would
Speaker 3: not be eligible. In fact, you know, the second round
Speaker 3: of funding has now been finalized, and yesterday we came
Speaker 3: to know and we put out a story today in
Speaker 3: the newspaper that in the second round of funding, thirteen
Speaker 3: companies have been recommended for getting loans from our DII fund,
Speaker 3: and only one of them has is such that it
Speaker 3: has financial links with one of the Selection Committee members.
Speaker 3: As we go forward, you know, the list of companies
Speaker 3: which get selected will make it clear how transparent and
Speaker 3: how trustworthy this process is. But as of now, the
Speaker 3: investigation did the job of just pointing a red flag
Speaker 3: on a systemic vulnerability, so that you know people there
Speaker 3: and people outside also become aware of what is happening
Speaker 3: with a very important fund, with a flagship initiative of
Speaker 3: the government. People become aware and the people within the
Speaker 3: system also realize that there is scrutiny, that somebody is
Speaker 3: looking over them and therefore everything functions as per proper
Speaker 3: laid down norms.
Speaker 1: And next we shift our focus to ousted Bangladesh Prime
Speaker 1: Minister Sheik Hasina, who last week held her first virtual
Speaker 1: media interaction after feeling from the country two years ago.
Speaker 5: Today, I speak not only as someone who had the
Speaker 5: honor of Serbi Banglades five times as a Prime minister,
Speaker 5: but also as the daughter of the father of the Nationaman.
Speaker 5: I speak as someone who has spare her life the
Speaker 5: people of Bangladesh. I was forced away from my country,
Speaker 5: but I was never separated from my paper before I speak.
Speaker 1: In this interaction, which took place at the Foreign Correspondence
Speaker 1: Club of South Asia in New Delhi, she talked about
Speaker 1: her plans to return to her country, stand with its
Speaker 1: people and help improve their lives.
Speaker 3: This was the first media interaction where outsted Bangladesh Prime
Speaker 3: Minister shik Hasina, who's been living in India for the
Speaker 3: last two years. She addressed the media and took questions.
Speaker 1: That's the Indian Express's diplomatic affairs editor, Shubuji Troi.
Speaker 3: And she timed it with the fifth of August, the
Speaker 3: day she kind of fled Bangladesh two years ago in
Speaker 3: the face of protests and violent protests in her country
Speaker 3: against her and her government.
Speaker 4: So that was sort of important moment.
Speaker 3: The fact that she chose to speak out and also
Speaker 3: answer questions. Some questions, she also dodged some questions, But overall,
Speaker 3: this interaction that took place at the Foreign Correspondence Club
Speaker 3: of South Asia, I think that was a significant political
Speaker 3: move from her, I mean considering that two years have
Speaker 3: passed since she fled her home country, so that I
Speaker 3: think was the most remarkable thing. And then obviously during
Speaker 3: their question answer also she and her son Saji was Joi,
Speaker 3: who had joined her from the US. She was an
Speaker 3: audio mode, whereas her son Saji Joi who joined from
Speaker 3: the US where he lives, and he was on video
Speaker 3: mode as well. So that's how this particular interaction took
Speaker 3: place on fifth of August.
Speaker 1: Now hasina stay in India has already had an impact
Speaker 1: on relations between India and Bangladesh. Bangladesh had, in fact
Speaker 1: raised concerns about Hasina holding such a media interaction, while
Speaker 1: India ahead of the event made it clear that it
Speaker 1: was being organized by a private entity and that the
Speaker 1: government had no role in it. But will this incident
Speaker 1: further strange ties between the two countries and what is
Speaker 1: the significance of Hassina's statements. To answer these questions, we
Speaker 1: speak to Shubaji in this segment. Shubiji, why do you
Speaker 1: think Hassina has held this media interaction Now? It's been
Speaker 1: two years since she fled Bangladesh, So why was the
Speaker 1: press conference conducted now?
Speaker 3: So you know, last time she spoke was through a
Speaker 3: video recorded message. A similar interaction at the same venue
Speaker 3: at sec Forum Correspondence Club where an audio recorded message
Speaker 3: was played out in January this year, just about a
Speaker 3: month before the elections took place in Bangladesh, and at
Speaker 3: that point in time, her pitch was that you know,
Speaker 3: Awami League has been banned from contesting the polls and
Speaker 3: it should be now that the elections have taken place
Speaker 3: without the participation of the Awami League which is her party,
Speaker 3: and BNP which is led by Tarik Rahman who is
Speaker 3: now the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, has taken charge and
Speaker 3: a few months have rolled by.
Speaker 4: I think she is now trying.
Speaker 3: To position herself and her party for contesting the elections
Speaker 3: in the future next time.
Speaker 4: Whenever the elections take place. It's a five year.
Speaker 3: Term that Tarik Rahman has, so still there is a
Speaker 3: lot of time to come. But I think the fact
Speaker 3: that the first few months has been challenging economically for
Speaker 3: Bangladesh and the Bangladesh government has faced economic challenges because
Speaker 3: of the rise in oil prices, gas prices in the
Speaker 3: country because of the war in West Asia. So I
Speaker 3: think she's trying to look at this as an opportune
Speaker 3: moment where she could to start her political campaign for
Speaker 3: a comeback in the next set of elections that will
Speaker 3: take place in Bangladesh about five years from now.
Speaker 1: And during the event, she mentioned that she has plans
Speaker 1: of returning to Bangladesh. So what significance does her statement hold.
Speaker 3: Well, Nierika, she said that she plans to return to
Speaker 3: her country and that is Bangladesh and stand with its
Speaker 3: people and help improve their lives now you know. She
Speaker 3: has said this once before in an interview to Reuters
Speaker 3: in July this year last month, but this is the
Speaker 3: first time she made it sort of in a much
Speaker 3: more public platform answering questions. When she was asked about
Speaker 3: when does she plan to return, she indicated that December
Speaker 3: is the month that she's looking at because December is,
Speaker 3: as we all know is She said that it's a
Speaker 3: vic month of victory, is a victory month for Bangladesh,
Speaker 3: essentially referencing and alluding to the nineteen seventy one War
Speaker 3: of Liberation of Bangladesh, which is the India Pakistan War
Speaker 3: as well, where on December sixteenth, Bangladesh was liberated. I
Speaker 3: mean basically East Pakistan was liberated from West Pakistan and
Speaker 3: Bangladesh was formed.
Speaker 4: So she indicated that as the timeline.
Speaker 5: Whatever fate evers me, I will return to my people.
Speaker 5: I cannot stay away while my Pilabit county men are suffering.
Speaker 5: I know I may be detained, I may be sent
Speaker 5: to pision, they may try to reinforce verts issue in
Speaker 5: fabricated cases. But fear cannot decide my duty to the
Speaker 5: people my life.
Speaker 3: Now, obviously this has created quite a ripple in Bangladesh,
Speaker 3: and we have to see how this sort of plays
Speaker 3: out politically because she faces several charges. She faces death
Speaker 3: sentence in Bangladesh for essentially ordering the shooting of the
Speaker 3: protesters and killing of protesters in Bangladesh. You know, according
Speaker 3: to different estimates. I mean, the Bangladesh government's estimate says
Speaker 3: eight hundred people were killed. Un estimate says fourteen hundred
Speaker 3: people were killed, but it needless to say it's in
Speaker 3: that range. So the large number of people were killed
Speaker 3: or they died during the protest. And so she faces
Speaker 3: these grave charges. So we have to see how this
Speaker 3: plays out, how her statement plays out in Bangladesh, and
Speaker 3: whether she's actually able to return to Bangladesh.
Speaker 1: And what kind of a reaction has Bangladesh had to
Speaker 1: this media event and her statement.
Speaker 3: So Hasina's statement was about twenty three minutes and then
Speaker 3: again I think fifteen twenty minutes of Q and A
Speaker 3: was there. Well, she answered some of the questions and
Speaker 3: she kind of said that she talked about Bangladesh's crisis
Speaker 3: and political crisis and law and order situation and all
Speaker 3: of that. So a statement has been rejected by the
Speaker 3: Bangladesh government.
Speaker 4: And manager government in fact.
Speaker 3: Raised it issued a pretty strong statement saying that their outraged,
Speaker 3: they deeply regret that in spite of concerns conveyed to
Speaker 3: the Indian government and about the likely ramifications of this
Speaker 3: media and traction, it was.
Speaker 4: Allowed to be held.
Speaker 3: So I think the senses that in Hakka, although the
Speaker 3: press conference was barred from being broadcast in Bangladesh using
Speaker 3: their draconian media censorship laws, that in fact the Hakka
Speaker 3: has sort of faced earlier as well, Asina herself had
Speaker 3: blocked similar press conferences or media statements are broadcast by
Speaker 3: Tarik Rahman, who was in London back in the day
Speaker 3: for about seventeen years. So the Tarik Rahman government used
Speaker 3: the same laws to block Hasina's press conference to be
Speaker 3: broadcast in the media on fifth of August. Nevertheless, I
Speaker 3: think people have heard her through different channels and different ways.
Speaker 1: And Shubiji the fact that this event took place in Delhi,
Speaker 1: how could that impact India Bangladest relations.
Speaker 3: So there has been a sense of disquiet and concern
Speaker 3: in Dhaka, as have gathered after talking to people there
Speaker 3: that people in the government and the political establishment feel
Speaker 3: that this only reinforces the belief that India is pro
Speaker 3: Awami League, is pro Hasina and is unable to reconcile
Speaker 3: to the new political realities where BNP and JAMA are
Speaker 3: the two major political players, and Bangladesh had forewarned in
Speaker 3: the Indian government that they should not allow this to happen.
Speaker 3: But the Indian government's position has been that it does
Speaker 3: not endorse the views. It is not organizing those views.
Speaker 3: It is being done by a private entity. There's no
Speaker 3: government control in it. But many in Bangladesh government view
Speaker 3: this as sort of allowing this presconsience to happen. They
Speaker 3: perceived this as like couldn't have happened without the support
Speaker 3: or the blessings of the Indian government.
Speaker 4: Now we don't know whether that's correct or not, but.
Speaker 3: It's fair to say that, you know, the fact that
Speaker 3: she's been living here for the last two years and
Speaker 3: this is the first time she spoke out. The impression
Speaker 3: is that the Indian government had sort of, if not
Speaker 3: you know, saying it, but at least they were aware
Speaker 3: of the fact that what kind of reaction it would
Speaker 3: generate from Dhaka. So many in Dhaka view this as
Speaker 3: a misstep at a time when the Tarakrahman government and
Speaker 3: New Delhi trying to repair tie. And this also puts
Speaker 3: the possible visit by Tarak Rahman for the Brick Summit
Speaker 3: in September Injio party. So we'll have to see how
Speaker 3: the Indian government is able to navigate and get past
Speaker 3: this Deitler challenge that this particular episode has thrown up.
Speaker 1: And in the last two years has the relationship between
Speaker 1: the two countries improved at all? What trajectory did the
Speaker 1: relationship follow after Hassena was ousted?
Speaker 3: Well, you know, after Hassina was ousted, the interim government
Speaker 3: was raised the issue of her extradition back to Bangladesh
Speaker 3: and the Indian government has not responded to that officially,
Speaker 3: essentially not responding it positively so far. So that created
Speaker 3: some bit of tension between India and Bangladesh.
Speaker 4: And also we saw, you know, some sort of.
Speaker 3: Political persecution and revenge was the order of the day.
Speaker 3: There was a law and order situation in Bangladesh where
Speaker 3: Awami League.
Speaker 4: Supporters were targeted.
Speaker 3: Which included some Hindus as well, and the Indian government
Speaker 3: under the BJP had raised the issue with Bangladesh. However,
Speaker 3: I mean things did not sort of change dramatically in
Speaker 3: the one and a half years and that Prosor Mahmad Yunus,
Speaker 3: the Nobel Laureate was in charge, was leading the interim
Speaker 3: government post.
Speaker 4: Elections in Bangladesh.
Speaker 3: I think there's been outreach by the two sides, so
Speaker 3: there's been some improvement, some positive movement. For example, Vida
Speaker 3: services have been brought back in the last few months,
Speaker 3: although not in full throttle like it used to be
Speaker 3: pre twenty twenty four, pre August twenty twenty four. But no,
Speaker 3: nevertheless it has restarted. But you know, there are a
Speaker 3: number of river share water sharing packs that are said
Speaker 3: to be the renewed the one in Ganga Ganga Water
Speaker 3: Treaty sharing treaty needs to be renewed this year. Also,
Speaker 3: the Tista Water Sharing Pact has been in limbo for
Speaker 3: almost two decades now, and you know the trade restrictions
Speaker 3: are in place, so there are no new projects that
Speaker 3: have started between the two sides. So overall the relationship
Speaker 3: is still was limping back to normal.
Speaker 4: See, but I think there's a long.
Speaker 3: Way to go and an episode like this definitely plays
Speaker 3: a role and definitely casts a shadow on the trajectory
Speaker 3: of the relationship.
Speaker 1: So Shiubiji in this situation, what is India's next move,
Speaker 1: what does it need to be careful about and how
Speaker 1: is it expected to proceed going ahead?
Speaker 3: Well, you know, there is sort of there are different
Speaker 3: ways that India could follow and the Indian government has
Speaker 3: to take a call on that. Well, right now, it
Speaker 3: has given Hasina a shelter and refuge in India, no
Speaker 3: questions asked about that, and the Indian government, according to
Speaker 3: Asina's son Joy himself, has been giving a pretty good
Speaker 3: treatment at treating her like what he called like a
Speaker 3: head of state with full services and security. And that
Speaker 3: is sort of a thing that will continue, is my sense.
Speaker 3: But you know, many experts your field and the analysis
Speaker 3: that Delhi probably is trying to create a leverage by
Speaker 3: using the form of PM and her ste statements and
Speaker 3: her silences to gain some diplomatic quid pro quae quo
Speaker 3: in negotiations on trade, water, economy, politics, security and range
Speaker 3: of tricky areas. With Bangladesh, there is a template with
Speaker 3: other political leaders being given asylum. I mean I want
Speaker 3: to politically, but I mean high profile leaders. So for example,
Speaker 3: in India, if you remember the Tibetan leader and his holiness,
Speaker 3: the Dalai Lama. He's been given refuge since the late
Speaker 3: fifties and it has angered annoyed China, but nevertheless India
Speaker 3: has continued to give him and the Tibetan community in
Speaker 3: a refuge. And there's a whole Tibetan community here and
Speaker 3: we'll love to see whether the Indian government also takes
Speaker 3: a similar approach with Shee Casina.
Speaker 4: But it will be.
Speaker 3: A sort of a tough task because in this kind
Speaker 3: of situation where Shee Casina's political future lies in going
Speaker 3: back or to Bangladesh or letting her children like her son,
Speaker 3: her daughter, who are also politically involved and have political
Speaker 3: ambitions for them to go back. So in future we
Speaker 3: have to see how it plays out.
Speaker 1: And in the end we talk about the cast census
Speaker 1: to be conducted alongside the population enumeration phase of the census.
Speaker 1: The Indian expresses Deepimantivari reported that there is a strong
Speaker 1: general of India has decided to use an open ended
Speaker 1: question on cast rather than a drop down menu for
Speaker 1: the same This format is likely to produce results similar
Speaker 1: to the twenty eleven exercise, when the Social Economic and
Speaker 1: Cast Census was conducted sources in the Ministry of Home
Speaker 1: Affairs said enumerators will simply ask people to state their
Speaker 1: cast and record the answer verbatim, without attempting to classify surnames, subcasts,
Speaker 1: or other responses into broader cast categories. Population enumeration, along
Speaker 1: with cast senses, will be conducted across the country in
Speaker 1: February next year. However, in hilly and snowbound areas, the
Speaker 1: exercise will begin from the first of September this year
Speaker 1: to avoid difficulties during the winter months. The decision comes
Speaker 1: after the RGI considered using a drop down menu drawing
Speaker 1: from the Central and state lists of casts, particularly for
Speaker 1: the other backward classes or the OBCs. The census already
Speaker 1: uses a drop down menu for recording notified schedule casts
Speaker 1: and schedule tribe communities, that is, the SC and the
Speaker 1: ST communities. However, when the open ended question on cast
Speaker 1: method was used for the twenty eleven socioeconomic and caste senses,
Speaker 1: the exercise had failed to produce usable cast data, largely
Speaker 1: because of poor data quality, the absence of a standardized
Speaker 1: cast tertistry, and flaws in operational design. Since respondents could
Speaker 1: self report cast names without verification, the exercise generated and
Speaker 1: administrative nightmare. The final data set contained over forty lack
Speaker 1: distinct cast names compared with four thousand, one forty seven
Speaker 1: casts recorded in the last comprehensive cost census in nineteen
Speaker 1: thirty one. But the government maintains that an open ended
Speaker 1: response is the only way to conduct the exercise without
Speaker 1: the state itself becoming an arbiter of cost identities. An
Speaker 1: MATEUR official told Deep Demand that census is not a
Speaker 1: verification exercise. It is only a recording exercise. It does
Speaker 1: not ask for evidence against your claims. The decision also
Speaker 1: addresses a concern raised by the RSS and sections of
Speaker 1: the Sung Parivar over the use of existing central and
Speaker 1: state caste lists. They had argued that relying on such
Speaker 1: lists could further entrench what they view as a cost
Speaker 1: architecture institutionalized under British rule. The choice of an open
Speaker 1: ended format, however, leaves the government with the challenge to
Speaker 1: convert millions of individual responses into reliable, standardized cast data
Speaker 1: without appearing to determine or alter what respondents have reported.
Speaker 1: You were listening to Three Things by the Indian Express.
Speaker 1: Today's episode was edited and mixed by Surish Bawar and
Speaker 1: produced by Ichas Sharma and me Nihari Kananda. If you
Speaker 1: like the show, then do subscribe to us wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. You can also recommend the show to
Speaker 1: someone you think we'll like it, share it with a
Speaker 1: friend or someone in your family. It's the best way
Speaker 1: for people to get to know about us. You can
Speaker 1: also tweet us at Express podcast and write to us
Speaker 1: at podcasts at Indianexpress dot com.