Rise and fall: The National Front, football hooliganism, and skinhead culture in Britain in the 1970s

Far-right groups like the National Front rose in the 1960s-70s with anti-immigrant, nationalist ideologies – can we see parallels today?

byJohn Heywood
17-03-2024


image by Tav Dulay. CC BY-SA 3.0


Former Conservative – now Reform – MP, Lee Anderson and others have recently stated that they want to “reclaim our country”, asserting that “our country has been given away”. What do they mean by that, and do they truly want to go back to the days of the 1970s and early 1980s? If so, God help us.

During the late 1960s and 1970s, the National Front (NF) emerged as a prominent fascist movement in Britain, with roots tracing back to the British Union of Fascists (BUF) formed in 1932 under Oswald Mosley’s leadership. Mosley, a former Tory MP turned Labour minister, advocated protectionism and state intervention to tackle unemployment, ideas that were not well-received amidst prevailing economic orthodoxies.

Roots of British fascism

The BUF, openly embracing paramilitary tactics and fascist ideology, gained some initial mainstream support but faced significant backlash, particularly after violent clashes at events like the infamous Olympia rally in 1934. Despite claiming a substantial membership, the BUF struggled to gain significant traction beyond specific demographics, including some disaffected professionals and members of the armed forces.

Mosley’s movement was unabashedly antisemitic, with explicit ties to Nazi Germany, evidenced by his marriage at Goebbels’ home and alliances with Hitler. The party’s shift to include “National Socialists” in its name in 1936 underscored its alignment with fascist ideology.

Waning support for British fascism

The Battle of Cable Street in 1936 marked a significant anti-fascist victory, although the BUF still maintained some support, particularly in East London. Despite limited electoral success, the BUF’s influence waned by 1937 as economic conditions stabilised and support from segments of the ruling class diminished.

Following World War II, attempts to revive far-right movements faced substantial challenges due to the stigma associated with Nazi collaboration. Oswald Mosley’s post-war endeavours, including the Union Movement, aimed to bring together disparate far-right factions but largely floundered.

Post-war resurgence of far-right groups

The League of Empire Loyalists, founded in 1954, espoused a mix of white supremacy, antisemitism, and anti-Communism, finding some appeal among disillusioned Conservatives. However, it eventually shifted towards anti-immigrant sentiment, aligning with the Conservative Party’s evolving policies.

The Conservative Party Monday Club, initially focusing on apartheid and immigration, transitioned to a more mainstream conservative stance, advocating for free-market principles and limited government intervention. By the 1970s, it boasted significant Tory support but maintained a controversial reputation due to its positions on race and immigration. In 2001, the Conservative Party formally severed relations with the club, which by then has ceased to exercise significant influence,

Birth of the National Front

Rising immigration in the late 1950s and early 1960s fuelled racial tensions, exploited by figures like Enoch Powell, who’s inflammatory “Rivers of Blood” speech in 1968 exacerbated divisions within the Conservative Party and galvanised far-right sentiments.

The formation of the National Front in 1967 marked a concerted effort to consolidate various far-right factions under a unified platform, emphasizing anti-immigrant rhetoric and populist appeals. However, internal divisions and opposition from anti-fascist groups hampered its electoral success.

The NF’s attempts to capitalise on industrial disputes and racial tensions in the 1970s, including backing strikes and populist economic policies, failed to garner significant support, but did engender increasing opposition from anti-fascist organisations. the NF was not only a political force, but also a breeding ground for violence and extremism. NF members were often involved in violent clashes with anti-fascist protesters, leading to numerous confrontations on the streets of Britain’s cities.

The really nasty party

The NF was known for its aggressive tactics and street brawls with opponents. These clashes frequently turned violent, resulting in injuries and arrests. One of the most notorious incidents occurred during the Battle of Lewisham in 1977 when the NF attempted to march through a predominantly black neighbourhood in South London. The ensuing clashes between NF supporters and anti-fascist activists, along with local residents, resulted in widespread violence and injuries.

Football hooliganism also played a significant role in the NF’s activities, as many of its members were involved in organised gangs known for their violence at football matches. These gangs, often composed of young working-class men, saw football matches as an opportunity to engage in physical confrontations with rival supporters and to verbally and physically abuse black players, leading to frequent disturbances in stadiums and surrounding areas.

Skinhead culture

Skinhead culture, which emerged in Britain during the late 1960s and early 1970s, became closely associated with the NF and far-right extremism. While not all skinheads were fascists, the movement attracted a significant number of individuals sympathetic to the NF’s racist and nationalist ideologies. Skinhead gangs often clashed with anti-fascist groups and immigrant communities, contributing to a climate of fear and intimidation.

Despite efforts by law enforcement and anti-fascist organisations to combat NF violence, the group continued to pose a significant threat to public safety throughout the 1970s. By the late 1970s and early 1980s though, the NF splintered, with offshoots like the British National Party (BNP) briefly gaining traction but ultimately failing to sustain electoral momentum. While remnants of the far right persist, particularly in the form of splinter groups, their influence remains limited compared to earlier decades. Despite challenges, the legacy of these movements underscores the ongoing struggle against fascism and the importance of vigilant opposition to extremist ideologies.

THE ANTIDOTE 

UK

Conservatives, Extremism, and the Ghost of Enoch Powell

Subjecting protestors to greater demonisation through the redefining of ‘extremism’ is just another chapter in the Tories’ painful history of hypocrisy

.

If you paid much attention to Rishi Sunak’s speech outside No. 10 on March 1, you would think our country had been overrun by anarchists and fanatics. Extremist groups are ‘trying to tear us apart,’ said the PM, decrying a ‘shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality’ in Britain since October 7. Michael Gove has been at it too. Some pro-Palestinian events have ‘been organised by extremist organisations,’ claimed the Communities Secretary. These are the same protests incidentally that have been acknowledged by the Metropolitan Police as disciplined, orderly, and professionally-managed.

The anarchy-obsessed Conservative government now has Gove announcing a new definition of extremism. As part of Sunak’s drive to crack down on Islamist extremists and far-right groups, the revised definition identifies extremism as an ideology that “undermines the rights or freedoms of others.” It differs from the old definition in that there has been a shift in focus from action to ideology. The previous definition, which was introduced in 2011, said extremism was the “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and belief.”

Critics say the new definition is so broad that it risks exacerbating community tensions. Zara Mohammed, head of the Muslim Council of Britain, said the definition would lead to the “unfair targeting of Muslim communities.” Others believe it is being used to seek a short-term tactical advantage in the run-up to the general election. A number of senior Tories, including former Home Secretaries Priti Patel, Sajid Javid and Amber Rudd, warned against using extremism to score political points. They believe that the government would be better off dialling down on extremism rhetoric, which they warn is giving Reform UK a boost.

“It completely plays into Reform’s hands. Why aren’t we talking about the Budget?” said one former cabinet minister.

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York joined the criticism, warning the government’s response ‘risks vilifying the wrong people’ and threatened freedom of speech and worship.

The same week that Gove announced his controversial new anti-extremism measures, a revelation hit the press that suggested the Tories’ biggest donor is an extremist himself, who upholds the most abhorrent views. Claims were made that Frank Hester, the healthcare technology business magnate who has donated £10m to the Tories in the past year, had said Diane Abbott made people “want to hate all black women” and “should be shot.”

The alleged comments mark a depressing new low for British politics. And the story gets worse. When asked whether the Tories should hand back the £10m donation, energy minister Graham Stuart told reporters that it would be wrong for a businessman to be ‘cancelled’ for his comments, and that the party should ‘welcome’ such donations.

Work and Pensions secretary Mel Stride meanwhile told Sky News that everyone needed to “move on” from the comments, and that he didn’t think what Hester was saying was a “gender based or race based comment.”

How on earth anyone could argue that describing the UK’s first black female MP as making people “wanting to hate all black women,” is neither gender nor race based is beyond any reasonable sense or logic.

Conservative Lord Marling meanwhile said that Hestor isn’t racist because “he does a lot of business in Jamaica… and places like that.”

After catastrophically messing up on the Anderson row, Sunak has catastrophically messed up on the Hester row. After initially resisting, a spokesperson for the PM eventually admitted the alleged comments by the Tory donor were ‘racist and wrong.’ Yet Sunak has rejected calls to return the £10m donated to the party by the businessman. “No… I am pleased [Hester] is supporting a party that represents one of the most diverse governments in this country’s history,” he told the Commons at Prime Minister’s Questions.

It’s likely that Sunak doesn’t want to return the money because it has already been spent. And, if he did, it’s likely Hester would defect to Reform UK, like Anderson did this week. Messier than a soup sandwich!

But while especially nasty and shocking, Hestor’s comment and the Tories’ disastrously inadequate response, come as little surprise. The Conservatives, who are now embroiled in yet another civil war over their highly contentious redefinition of extremism, have, along with their media and donor cronies, a long history of flirting with and sometimes embracing racist extremism.

In 1964, what is regarded as Britain’s most racist election campaign ever fought in Britain, took place in the West Midlands constituency of Smethwick when the Conservative Peter Griffiths was elected MP on the slogan, “If you want a n****r for a neighbour, vote Labour.” Talking to the Times during his election campaign, Griffiths refused to disown the slogan. “I would not condemn any man who said that. I regard it as a manifestation of popular feeling,” he said.

The racially motivated campaign proved successful, and Smethwick bucked the national swing from the Tories to Labour, and Griffiths won the seat.

And let’s not forget that one of modern British history’s most divisive addresses was made by the Conservative MP Enoch Powell. Powell gained notoriety for his viciously anti-immigration speech in 1968, commonly known as the “Rivers of Blood” speech. It divided the nation with its racist, incendiary rhetoric, and led to the MP being kicked out of the shadow cabinet, effectively ending his political ambitions. Yet 56 years later, Enoch Powell’s name still resonates with many right-wing Tories.

After saying that asylum seekers who did not want to be housed on the Bibby Stockholm barge should “f*** off back to France” in August last year, Lee Anderson, then deputy chair of the Conservative party, was branded a ‘pound shop Enoch Powell’ by Chris McEleny of the Alba Party.

As with the Frank Hestor controversy this week, Anderson’s comments were defended by fellow Tories. Justice secretary Alex Chalk told broadcasters that the MP was expressing “righteous indignation of the British people” with his incendiary comments.

And let’s also not forget that the prime minister refused to address anti-Muslim concerns following Anderson’s more recent comments that ‘Islamists’ had ‘got control of London’ and its mayor, Sadiq Khan. While Anderson might have had the whip removed by the party following the comments, Sunak still claimed that there were no Islamophobia issues in the Conservative party.

 

This is the same party which, in 2019, was criticised for refusing to adopt a recommended definition of Islamophobia produced by an all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims. The definition was produced after six months of consultations. It classified discrimination against Muslims as a form of racism and was described as a necessity to tackle the rise of far-right racism. In refusing to adopt the definition, the Muslim Council of Britain had warned that the Conservative Party was at risk of “placing themselves on the wrong side of the argument.”

Lee Anderson is not the only senior, now ex-Tory to have been likened to Enoch Powell. Suella Braverman was also described as the ‘new Enoch Powell,’ after she described refugees landing in Kent as an “invasion” in November 2022.

“Braverman is a modern-day Enoch Powell,” wrote Sean O’Grady, associate editor of the Independent. “This might be strange and ironic, seeing as Powell was campaigning against the (entirely legal) settlement in the UK of Asians expelled from Kenya and Uganda in the 1960s and 1970s, such as her own family,” he continued.

While the liberal media may provide some critical analysis on the racist tropes used by right-wing ministers, the Tory media often cheerleads the comments.

“Lee Anderson is victim of immoral Tories giving in to Sadiq Khan’s ‘Islamophobe’ smear,’ was an incredulous headline in the Express. “Lee Anderson did not say anything Islamophobic but has suffered because of the Conservative Party’s moral rottenness,” the author argued.

The consequences of the reckless use of inflammatory Enoch Powell-esque rhetoric by ministers and their supporting factions of the media, can be sinister and dangerous. Such perils were brought to light this week. Kingston Crown Court heard how a man who claimed ‘Hitler was right’ visited an immigration lawyer’s office with a knife and handcuffs planning to kill him. The court was told how in an interview with police, the accused had said he had first saw the lawyer’s name in the Daily Mail, and that he brought “foreign invaders” into the country.

As so often with Right-Wing Watch, the discussion takes us to conservative think-tanks, which, as we know, have direct connections to the Conservative Party. The deliberately provocative tactic of labelling principally peaceful campaign groups as ‘extremists’ can be traced to such groups.

Policy Exchange, the government think-tank that claims to be a neutral educational charity but has for years been building a case for curtailing the judiciary, and was relied on heavily by Boris Johnson’s government, referred to Extinction Rebellion (XR) as an ‘extremist group.’ The influence of such think-tanks on national policy was starkly revealed, when, some months later, XR was duly designated an extremist group by counter-terrorist police.

In fact, the legislative crackdown on protest in Britain by the then home secretary Priti Patel, which could lead to groups like XR being branded ‘extremists,’ was found to have roots with Policy Exchange. An investigation by openDemocracy found that a 2019 report by Policy Exchange called for protest laws to be “urgently reformed in order to strengthen the ability of police to place restrictions on planned protest and deal more effectively with mass law-breaking tactics.” The report even explicitly said the government should pass legislation to target XR.

William Allchorn, associate director at the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right (CARR), argues that instead of perusing new definitions of the word ‘extremism,’ an ‘inclusionary turn’ is needed when dealing with any hue of ‘extremist’ protest. In his book, Anti-Islamic Protest in the UK Policy Responses to the Far Right, Allchorn subscribes to the notion that better cross-community contact, grassroots educational initiatives against prejudice and a re-engagement between politicians and disaffected constituencies are all important preventative methods when dealing with political extremism.

Subjecting protestors to greater demonisation through the redefining of ‘extremism’ is just another chapter in the Tories’ painful history of hypocrisy. Posturing as freedom champions while slowly chipping away at civil liberties through draconian legislation, ‘extremism,’ the very thing they are going after, has been historically fuelled in Conservative political and media circles. If Michael Gove and Rishi Sunak really wanted to weed out the real threats to Britain, perhaps they should convince their own party to look in the mirror?

And perhaps in this week of all weeks we should leave the last word to Diane Abbott. Writing in the Guardian, she points to the way in which in an election year, the Tories have blown their reputation for sound economic management and low taxation, meaning they will play the race card and ruthlessly. And Diane Abbott should know having watched the Tories close up for longer than most of us.

Right-Wing Media Watch – Boris-worshipping Express pines for ‘Big Dog’s’ return

What could possibly save Rishi Sunak from what looks like uncertain political obliteration in the general election? Boris Johnson, of course! And, specifically, Boris Johnson trumpeting Brexit freedoms. At least, that is what the Boris-worshiping Daily Express is championing for.

In a series of articles this week, the newspaper showed no shame in its tireless devotion to the disgraced former PM, claiming he is set for a ‘big general election’ comeback in a ‘bid to rescue the Tories.’

“The larger-than-life former premier will reportedly campaign for the Conservatives in the Red Wall,” claimed the newspaper.

In a front page ‘exclusive’ on March 13, the Express salivated over the former PM’s return to the campaign trail to protect the ‘hard won and great’ Brexit freedoms he secured with his election victory.

According to allies cited in the report, Johnson is a Tory “through and through” (sub-text -Sunak isn’t?) and is happy to put his skills to “good use.”

The following day, the same newspaper launched a ‘Should Boris Johnson help Tories campaign at next general election’ poll. Trying to coax readers into voting ‘yes’ with about as much subtlety as a flying brick, the article claims that the former PM’s “I’ll be back” comment when he quit Parliament last year, following what they call a “witch hunt” probe into Partygate, was a direct message to Daily Express readers.

The Times was at it too. ‘Boris Johnson to make a general election comeback for the Tories,’ the national splashed on March 12.
Wishful claims of a Big Dog comeback haven’t exactly been verified yet. In fact, Johnson’s biggest ally Nadine Dorries has categorically unverified them. On a post on X, she wrote:

“This story has been panic placed by No 10 – probably by Issac Levido [the Australian political strategist credited with coining election-winning slogans for Boris Johnson] in a desperate attempt to halt any further defections to Reform.

“There’s no thawing of relations, no plans to campaign. Sunak not spoken to Johnson for over a year.”

But you have to give the aforementioned media some credit. The Tories are likely to need some kind of miracle if they are to avoid electoral wipeout whenever the next general election might be. But having presided over some of the biggest scandals to have engulfed modern British politics, including breaking the rules his own government set, the return of Big Dog is surely not the answer.

Smear of the Week – Tories’ smear campaign against Angela Rayner spectacularly backfires as cops veto charges

The Conservatives and their client media’s smear campaign against the Labour deputy leader has spectacularly backfired. Despite their best efforts to embroil Rayner in controversy involving a council house she once owned and sold, a line has been drawn under a scandal that didn’t even really exist, by the police.

The story originally surfaced in the Daily Mail after the newspaper had seen extracts of an unauthorised biography on Rayner by Lord Ashcroft. The former Conservative Party deputy chairman (responsible for the fake ‘Piggate’ story in an unauthorised biography about David Cameron) Ashcroft accused Rayner of hypocrisy, claiming that she had used Margaret Thatcher’s flagship discounted home ownership policy to buy her own home but now wants to reform the policy.

In a further twist to the tale, James Daly, Tory MP for Bury North, a neighbouring constituency of Rayner’s, asked Greater Manchester Police to investigate whether Rayner had given false information on official documents and had broken electoral rules in relation to where she was registered as living after her marriage in 2010.

Despite the Labour MP repeatedly denying any wrongdoing, the right-wing press gushed all over the story.

‘Angela Rayner could face a police probe into ‘false claims over addresses’ before she sold her council home,’ splashed the Daily Mail in February.

This week, the police announced that they have found no evidence that any offence had been committed and that the Labour deputy will not face a political investigation over the claims.

You think that the story would have been laid to rest at that point but no, James Daly will not let it lie.

Following the police’s decision not to pursue the investigation after finding no evidence of wrongdoing, Daly blamed Rayner’s ‘refusal’ to answer ‘basic questions’ about where she used to live, and claimed the case had not been given the attention it deserves.

‘I’m very concerned that in a year in which we will have both a general election and local elections this matter is not being given the attention it surely warrants.

‘She is steadfastly refusing to answer the extremely basic questions. It’s a far cry from the standards she demands of others,” the MP told the Mail, which naturally seized the chance to keep the smear alive.

In what could be considered as a big dose of karma, Daly has been accused of wasting police time. “Tory MPs shouldn’t be wasting police time, they should be concentrating on governing,” a Labour source told the Mail.

Honestly, you’d think they would have learned by the ridiculous ‘Beergate’ story, which the Mail ran for weeks, despite Keir Starmer being cleared over the allegations he had broken lockdown rules.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead 
Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

OPINION

Elephants and Rihanna and Billionaires, Oh My!

March 17, 2024

Pre-wedding celebration for Radhika Merchant and Anant Ambani.

Credit...Reliance Industries handout via Reuters


By Sonia Faleiro
Ms. Faleiro is an author from India.


Rihanna, Mark Zuckerberg, bejeweled elephants and 5,500 drones. Those were some of the highlights of what is likely the most ostentatious “pre-wedding” ceremony the modern world has ever seen.

On a long weekend in early March, members of the global elite gathered to celebrate the impending nuptials of the billionaire business titan Mukesh Ambani’s youngest son, Anant, and Radhika Merchant. Monarchs, politicians and the ultrawealthy, including Bill Gates and Ivanka Trump, descended on an oil refinery city in the western Indian state of Gujarat for an event so extravagant you’d be forgiven for thinking it was, well, a wedding. But that will take place in July. For the long windup to the big day, some of Bollywood’s biggest stars, though invited as guests, took to the stage to sing and dance in what amounted to a bending of the knee to India’s most powerful family.

Watching the event, I couldn’t help thinking of the 1911 durbar, or royal reception, when King George V was proclaimed emperor of India. Once India won its independence from Britain in 1947, it committed itself to becoming a democratic welfare state — an audacious experiment that resulted in what is now the world’s largest democracy. But in advance of this year’s general election, expected to begin in April, the Ambani-Merchant matrimonial extravaganza shows us where true power in India now lies: with a handful of people whose untrammeled wealth and influence has elevated them to the position of India’s shadow leaders.

It’s difficult to imagine the Ambani-Merchant wedding event in an India that isn’t ruled by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It’s true that the Ambanis have been wealthy for years now and that accusations of favorable treatment from government authorities are not unique to this family or the Modi government. But no other prime minister in India’s history has been so openly aligned with big business, and never before has the concentration of wealth been more apparent. India’s richest 1 percent now own more than 40 percent of the country’s wealth, according to Oxfam. The country has the world’s largest number of poor, at 228.9 million. And according to a newly published study looking at 92 low- and middle-income countries, India had the third-highest percentage of “zero food” children — babies between 6 months and 23 months old who had gone a day or more without food other than breast milk at the time they were surveyed. Oxfam has described this new India as the “survival of the richest.”

For the uberwealthy, this presents a no-holds-barred opportunity to exert their power and influence. In 2017, Mr. Modi introduced a fund-raising mechanism called “electoral bonds” to allow unlimited anonymous donations to political parties. In the five years that followed, the prime minister’s Bharatiya Janata Party received $635 million in contributions through such bonds, 5.5 times as much as its closest rival, the Congress Party. The 2019 Indian general elections cost $8.6 billion, surpassing the estimated $6.5 billion spent on the 2016 U.S. presidential and congressional elections.

Analysis by three independent media organizations in India published on March 14 revealed that a company called Qwik Supply Chains purchased bonds in the scheme worth $50 million. One of the company’s three directors, reporters later uncovered, is also a director at several subsidiaries of Reliance, Mukesh Ambani’s mega-firm. A spokesperson for Reliance said that Qwik is not a Reliance subsidiary and did not respond to further questioning from Reuters. The Indian Supreme Court has since struck down the electoral bond mechanism, calling it unconstitutional, but the delay in addressing the matter has most likely come too late to change the outcome of the forthcoming election, which is widely considered all but certain to go in Mr. Modi’s favor.

And judging by the omnipresence of Mr. Modi’s image — the state-funded publicity exercises focused on exalting him, the constant advertisements in newspapers and on TV, his image plastered on billboards and life-size cutouts everywhere from train stations to public parks — even those who wish to vote for other candidates might be forgiven for thinking there are none. With the help of a small group of business tycoons, led by Mr. Ambani, the prime minister has dominated the Indian media landscape. Since Mr. Modi came to power, Mr. Ambani has invested heavily in the media and now owns more than 70 outlets, including India’s biggest media conglomerate, which are followed by 800 million weekly viewers. Many of these outlets have been trumpeting Mr. Modi’s credentials and heaping praise on him.

Mr. Ambani has been relentless in expressing his gratitude to Mr. Modi for working in step with Reliance. In January, Mr. Ambani hailed Mr. Modi as the “most successful prime minister in India’s history.” Later that month, the tycoon’s family traveled to Ayodhya for the inauguration of the Ram Mandir temple complex, which is being built on the highly contentious grounds of a functioning mosque that was destroyed by a Hindu mob in 1992. The construction of the Ram Mandir is the epitome of Mr. Modi’s tenure, which has been defined by a violent and divisive Hindu majoritarianism. Mr. Ambani donated $300,000 toward the temple costs.

Mr. Modi was reportedly not present during the Ambani wedding event, leading to speculation on social media that he wanted to avoid further accusations of cronyism in an election year. But his hand was evident. Anant Ambani told the press that he in part chose his family’s hometown Jamnagar as his pre-wedding venue to honor the prime minister’s “Wed in India” call for young Indians to marry at home rather than abroad. Jamnagar is the location of Mr. Ambani’s oil refinery, which is the largest in the world. And in a brazen misuse of public resources, the government temporarily turned the city’s small domestic airport into a designated international airport, clearing the way for guests to land their private aircrafts. The government airport was expanded, staff numbers were increased, and the Indian Air Force deployed additional military personnel — all in the service of one event for one family.

Some Indians viewed the arrival of the world’s elite on their shores as a sign of their country’s growing prominence in the world. The occasion was treated as a national event, with “breaking news” and live feeds of the arrival and then departure of every celebrity; of the more than 1,000 guests who stayed in luxury tents and were provided with makeup artists and sari drapers and were reportedly served 2,500 dishes; of the lion-shaped diamond brooch on Anant Ambani’s suit and his Richard Mille wristwatch, worth an estimated $1 million, which even Mr. Zuckerberg appeared to covet.

But what viewers saw that long weekend in March wasn’t India at all, but the playground of an oligarch. The festivities took place weeks before a national election, at a time when India’s democracy is teetering on an edge. Violence against Muslims, Christians and Dalits has been normalized. The harassment of journalists, the incarceration of human rights activists and police violence against protesters has all but wrenched the country from the path chosen by its founding leaders, who wished the people of India to enjoy a “sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.” In 2022, Freedom House, the nonprofit organization that tracks democratic governance, downgraded India from “free” to “partly free.” This status remains unchanged.

The Ambanis are entitled to spend their money on whatever they want (except, perhaps, on electoral bonds). And this latest celebration, while lavish, wasn’t entirely atypical in India, where weddings are viewed as an opportunity to demonstrate status. The giddy young couple at the center of the spectacle are charming: Ms. Merchant is a trained classical dancer; her fiancé is fond of animals. It would be churlish not to celebrate their happiness.

But if the 1911 Delhi durbar was a symbol of British imperial power, then the Ambani pre-wedding event in Jamnagar symbolized the rise of Mr. Modi’s oligarchs. And if this small group of people are thriving in their symbiotic relationship with the Indian prime minister, it comes at the cost of the nation’s experiment with building a democratic welfare state. That’s nothing to celebrate.

Sonia Faleiro is a writer and the founder of the literary mentorship program South Asia Speaks. Her most recent book is “The Good Girls: An Ordinary Killing.”

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

India's 'lottery king' emerges as top political donor in opaque system

Santiago Martin’s Future Gaming and Hotel Services spent 13.68 billion Indian rupees 

(RM568 million) between 2019 and 2024. — Reuters file pic

Sunday, 17 Mar 2024 6:05 PM MYT

NEW DELHI, March 17 — India’s “lottery king”, accused by the authorities of fraud and money laundering, has emerged with his company as the nation’s top political donor under an opaque funding system that has just been partially opened to scrutiny.

Santiago Martin’s Future Gaming and Hotel Services spent 13.68 billion Indian rupees (RM568 million) between 2019 and 2024 - 40 per cent more than the next-highest donor - under the now-scrapped funding system, which allowed anonymous and unlimited donations to political parties, data showed on Thursday.

The information, published by the election commission on the orders of India’s Supreme Court, shows Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party was the biggest overall recipient but does not detail which party any donor gave to.

Future Gaming did not respond to Reuters request for comment on its donations. Although the court found the “electoral bonds” system unconstitutional, there was no suggestion that donations were improper.

The data on the defunct funding system draws attention to the chequered history of Martin, 59, who built a lottery-to-real estate empire up from selling lottery tickets as a teenager.

A flashy, smooth-talking figure who has made friends across the political spectrum, Martin has splurged on politicians, handing out expensive gifts as his business empire grew, according to local press accounts.

Over the years, tax authorities, police and investigative agencies have searched his business premises and seized properties in connection with cases against him. His appeals against property seizures by the Enforcement Directorate, India’s financial crime agency, were dismissed last year.

The directorate filed a prosecution complaint in court in September against Future Gaming and 15 other Martin-affiliated companies under the money-laundering statute.

“They have allegedly cheated the lottery issuing state governments by not depositing the entire sale proceeds generated from the sale of lotteries,” and violated the lottery law by illegally retaining and claiming prizes on unsold tickets, and manipulating data, the agency said.

Martin and his firm have denied wrongdoing. His conglomerate, Martin Group, said in October the group and its firms obey the law and that Martin was India’s highest taxpayer in the financial year to March 2003.

Labourer to hobnobber

After working as a teenage labourer in Myanmar to support his family, Martin returned to India in the late 1980s and began his business career in the southern city of Coimbatore, according to his nonprofit Martin Charitable Trust.

The two-digit lottery he ran gained popularity in the region as poor people dreamt of becoming rich overnight. Martin expanded to other states and eventually to neighbouring Bhutan and Nepal, where he had a monopoly on distributing the tickets, according to his website.

He produced a 200-million-rupee ($2.4-million) film - written by the chief minister of Tamil Nadu state and based on Russian writer Maxim Gorky’s novel “Mother” - that was released in 2011.

That year the state’s ruling party lost elections and Martin’s fortunes turned.

He and his affiliates faced fraud allegations in 32 lottery scandal cases registered by India’s federal police, including for allegedly defrauding the northeastern state of Sikkim of more than 45 billion rupees in unpaid lottery ticket proceeds.

He was jailed with several politicians for eight months in connection with 14 cases, including charges of land-grabbing, cheating and illegal lottery sales. He has not been convicted in any of the cases, some of which are still pending, and was released on bail in 2012.

As his troubles mounted, Martin’s family took centre stage. His wife shared a dais in 2014 with Modi during his successful campaign for prime minister, and Martin’s eldest son Charles joined Modi’s party a year later. — Reuters

India emerges as new toy manufacturing hub for global brands

This could be a huge setback for China

ByAkash Pandey

Mar 17, 2024

03:32 pm

What's the story

India's toy industry has seen a significant surge between FY15 and FY23, with exports skyrocketing by 239% and imports dropping by 52%.This shift has transformed India into a net exporter of toys.Factors such as mandatory Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) approval for toy sales, protectionism, increased customs duty, and the China-Plus-One strategy have contributed to this boom.Major global brands are now relying more on India for sourcing their products.

Growth drivers

BIS regulations and increased customs duty fuel growth

The introduction of mandatory BIS approval for toy sales in India has significantly reduced the country's dependence on China, which previously stood at 80%.The Indian government's decision to raise the basic customs duty on toys from 20% to 70% has also played a crucial role.As a result, imports have been largely replaced by domestically produced toys.Major manufacturers like Dream Plast, Microplast, and Incas are gradually shifting their focus from China to India.

Developments

Global toy majors establishing base in India

Global toy brands are increasingly setting up bases in India, with companies like Hasbro, Mattel, and Spin Master sourcing on a large scale from the country.Chennai-based Funskool, owned by tyremaker MRF and associates, now caters to 60% of its production to export markets, including 33 countries across the GCC, Europe and the US.The company's CEO R Jeswant stated that many firms have established their base in India due to supportive government policies like BIS.

You're 66% through

Insights

Future prospects and challenges for Indian toy industry

Despite the growth, the Toy Association of India (TAI) believes that BIS rules need further relaxation to support micro, small, and medium enterprises.Out of approximately 6,000 toy manufacturing units in India, only 1,500 have obtained a BIS license.However, market research firm IMARC predicts a bright future for the industry with its value expected to reach $4.4 billion by 2032 from $1.7 billion in 2023, indicating a growth rate of 10.6%.