13 March 2013

13 March 1937: British activist Agatha Harrison on progress in India

From our correspondence.

Agatha Harrison was a Quaker, welfare activist and pacifist who worked closely with Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian League towards Indian independence. She acted as an intermediary for Gandhi while he was on hunger strike, and was the first academic tutor in Industrial Welfare at the London School of Economics. When she died suddenly in 1954, Krishna Menon – India’s first post-independence High Commissioner to London – said: “She had no office or title, and no flags were lowered for her, but all over India people honour her name.”

13 March 1937

The Situation in India

SIR, I have just returned from India, where I had the opportunity of being on the spot while the elections were taking place. The editorial comment in your issue of March 6th—that “the meaning of the Indian provincial elections has not yet begun to dawn on public opinion” here—is all too true.

You rightly say that the recent elections in which Congress has secured such striking results are a “plebiscite” on the new Constitution. With a majority in six out of the eleven provinces, and forming the largest single party in another three, Congress must be reckoned with seriously. When Mr Gandhi came to the second Round Table Conference in 1931 he was ridiculed, and ever since the range of this party has been belittled, and attention focused on its diversity rather than on its unity. So, in this country, we face the present situation ill-prepared; knowing little of the history of the growth and scope of the movement; almost nothing of its leaders, save Mr Gandhi and Mr Nehru.

In the third week of March Mr Nehru, the President, has summoned a meeting in Delhi of the All India Congress Committee to consider the question of office acceptance. In preparation for this, “reasoned recommendations” have been called for from local, district and provincial Congress committees “outlining the course of action to be taken up by Congress members of the legislatures to further our policy of rejection of the Act as a whole and to impede further development of the federal scheme.” Once again, attention here tends to be diverted from the main issue and concentrated instead in forecasting possible spilts “that may occur when the meeting takes place. Surely this time would be better spent in studying the basis on which these men and women have been returned to power.

On April 1st the Government of India will inaugurate the India Act. On the same day Congress has called a nationwide hartal, or general strike, “in order to demonstrate effectively the will of the Indian people to resist the imposition of the unwanted constitution…” The Government of India and the Congress are faced with a grave position; one that calls for great qualities of statesmanship on both sides; and for men and women in this country to be watchful and informed.

Agatha Harrison.

› Minimum alcohol pricing fails the coalition's "cost of living test"

A snow-laden Gandhi in Union Square, New York. Photo: Getty Images.

Letters, articles and notes from the New Statesman's centenary archive.

Getty

Show Hide image

25 November 2016

Jill Stein’s call for a recount of the US election result is a public service – but is it possible?

Hacking claims and slim margins are spurring people on to fund the Green Party nominee’s campaign for a recount in some states.

Jill Stein didn’t stand even a remote shot at winning the White House, but her efforts to secure recounts in swing states that went to Donald Trump will likely be her greatest political moment – even if those efforts end up failing.

Stein has launched a campaign to raise more than $2m to fund voter recounts in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania; as of today, more than $4.5m has been raised, which is more than the $3,509,477 contributors gave to Stein’s 2016 campaign; the goal has now been raised to $7.

Hillary Clinton hasn’t released an official statement on the recount push.

Citing concerns of alleged cyber hacks, Stein, the former Green Party presidential nominee, and a group of scientists from the University of Michigan, led by Professor of Computer Scienc J. Alex Halderman, are calling for an audit of voting results in the three aforementioned states. Although Halderman admits that it’s unlikely hacking took place, he argues in a Medium post that there are too few checks and balances to stop manipulating voting machines being a real possibility.

What is also fuelling Stein’s drive are admissions by top US security officials that Russian cyberhackers broke into the Democratic National Committee and Florida state servers this summer.

That said, is a recount possible? Yes, but very unlikely.

The deadline to file for a recount in Wisconsin is Friday 25 November. Pennsylvania’s is the following Monday and Michigan’s is Wednesday. Stein’s efforts have also been met with suspicion and outright doubts that the election manipulated.

In order to make a compelling argument that the very time-consuming task of recounting votes is worth it, Stein and her supporters would have to present some pretty convincing evidence of wrongdoing. So far, none of her supporters have produced such evidence.

Michigan’s director of elections says the state doesn’t use electronic voting machines, making a hack pretty much impossible. Even Halderman, the top cyberhacking expert, says the election was likely not the victim of a cyberattack.

“Probably not,” Halderman writes. “I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.”

A recount, he argues, is the only surest way to know.

The main problem with Halderman’s argument, though, is that Clinton, who actually had a shot at beating Trump, doesn’t seem interested. Her margins of defeat in the swing states in question were pretty close, so states would likely grant a recount if she asked. But she hasn’t, and that doesn’t bode well for Stein and her supporters.

During Clinton’s concession speech after it was clear that Trump won, she told her supporters to accept Trump as “our president”.

Another problem with Stein’s recount efforts is her public image in American mainstream media. Fair or unfair, she really is not well-respected outside of her liberal Green Party circles. Billed by her detractors as the “spoiler” candidate, views on Stein’s political outlook have ranged from “weird” to outright “nutty”.

And while she appeared on several televised townhalls, Stein never debated on the main stage because our debate commission rules require candidates to prove they have a shot at winning an electoral college vote or have at least 15 per cent support in national polling; she never came close to that number.

None of this matters when asking if Stein’s calls for a recount are legitimate. Because they are. Her efforts have forced Americans to question if election officials are taking every step possible to ensure that the first tally of votes were counted properly and accurately in the first place. As Vox recently reported, America’s recount laws are outdated. And we do need to gain a better understanding of how votes are counted and double-checked for accuracy.

If a bank teller asks us to count our money before we leave the booth, why shouldn’t we do the same for counting votes in states where the margin of victory was so slim for Trump? And Halderman does make a good point that because hackers are so sophisticated, signs of hacking may not be immediately obvious.

Many of us in the American press who have been covering this election know very little about the nuances of individual states’ recount laws and the voter count process, no matter how much a few of us claim to.

Some of Stein’s critics are saying that she is pushing this recount drive for her own personal gain. I can’t read her brain, so I won’t make such a judgement. But, what is clearly apparent is that Stein’s insistence that each vote was properly counted can’t do anything but bolster confidence in the American election process. And if that means some her critics are forced to see her face more than they wish, so be it.

Our democracy will become stronger each day she demands an audit of the system citizens depend on to elect men and women to the most important posts in American government.

Terrell J. Starr is a political correspondent based in New York. He specialises in Russian-US politics.