In the second episode of Frontlineâs SpeakEasy, independent journalist Amit Baruah speaks with political scientist Pratap Bhanu Mehta about the future of Indian democracy and the global turn towards strongman politics. Mehta examines whether India is drifting toward one-party dominance, why Hindutva has become the ideological centre of gravity, and how political fragmentation, weakened institutions, and a fading opposition have reshaped the democratic landscape. He warns that Indiaâs constitutional norms are being stretched to âinfinite elasticityâ, that authoritarian trends are deepening, and that the ruling elite may no longer find it easy to relinquish power if pushed into opposition. From the collapse of AAPâs political promise to the Congressâs leadership crisis, from institutional capture to the dangers of partisan citizenship, Mehta draws parallels between India and other democracies sliding toward executive overreachâincluding the United States and France.
Tag: Democracy
Browncast Episode 78: Omar Al Nidawi
Another BP Podcast is up. You can listen on Libsyn, iTunes, Spotify, and Stitcher. Probably the easiest way to keep up the podcast since we donât have a regular schedule is to subscribe at one of the links above.
You can also support the podcast as a patron. The primary benefit now is that you get the podcasts considerably earlier than everyone else.
Would appreciate more positive reviews! Alton Brownâs âBrowncastâ has 30 reviews on Stitcher alone! Help make us the biggest browncast there is!
In this episode we talk to Omar Al Nidawi, who is an Iraqi-American who works to promote development and democracy in Iraq and talks to us about his impressions of the current crisis in Iraq and what may lie in the future. He also tells us a little about homebrewing beer and how he got to be the President of the Washington DC homebrewers club.

Listen Without Prejudice
Iâm no pundit; Iâm a person and this post is personal. Many of the themes I touch on are contested and my personal perspective may not sit well with some. That is fine, but before an attempt is made to attack what follows, ask a single question, is this personal for you? I didnât intend to write this for many reasons, but mainly because I can do without quite possibly having to defend my personal perspective, which isnât something one should have do. Nevertheless, it’s been written and posted now, so any and all rights except anonymity have been waived.Â
I decided to write this post on what has happened, is happening and may happen in Hong Kong in response to a tweet from Bloomberg columnist Andy Mukherjee with a link to a piece authored by a former Financial Times Hong Kong bureau chief Rahul Jacob on the events unfolding in Hong Kong. Mr. Mukherjee has a significant number of readers from India and the rest of South Asia. His tweet read that the piece was âthe only thing you need to read todayâ asserting to his followers it was definitive. I did read it in full and that was enough to provoke a response.Â
Iâve been reading Mr. Mukherjee since the turn of the millennium and am aware of his background as a first-generation expat or migrant and his career as a financial journalist both in print and on television. Mr. Jacobâs background I am less familiar with but having read his definitive piece it became clear to me the assertion was misleading if not downright suspect.
The realisation occurred when the author repeated what has been said many times by many protestors, journalists and academics. That there should be sympathy for Hong Kong Chinese, who are unique and distinct from their mainland brothers and sisters, are the children and grandchildren of refugees, who fled from oppression, not poverty. Â
This claim of unique identity and more importantly injury to that identity is incendiary for reasons I will elaborate on later. However, once it was made and without context, it was obvious the piece was not definitive and the author could not be credible. Having read it, I saw Mr. Jacob was unwilling or unable to tell the whole story. Instead it was yet another retelling of parts of the story that are convenient to the narrative. One constructed by a fawning international media, whose fickle attention appears bent on manufacturing the consent of domestic audiences for what appears to be inevitable future policy.Â
I want to be clear; I am not a Beijing apologist and my sympathies do not lie with the Party. What little wealth I have was built on the back of the rule of law, personal freedoms and political stability. All three are what made Hong Kong an attractive destination for international companies to establish their base over rivals and for mainland companies to raise capital. I may have benefitted from unprecedented growth in China, the product of an authoritarian political system, but that has been underpinned by the three key principles without which life would have been possible but not as pleasant. All three were critical to Hong Kongâs rise as an international finance centre but only two were necessary and remain so for its continued prosperity.Â
The key sentence in this post is the last one, that, in essence is the basis of my view, and if you have read my soliloquy this far and are bored already, that really is all you need to know. Some may be surprised perhaps angry at the suggestion universal rights are not necessary for continued prosperity and I will attend to those concerns in due course with examples. The short version of my argument is that Hong Kongâs future is at risk if political stability never returns and the rule of law is undermined. Governments in Beijing and Hong Kong as well as the protestors themselves are compromising both and at this stage playing the blame game is no longer relevant.Â
