'எழுதப்படிக்கத் தெரியாதவர்களே இல்லாத இந்தியா' என்கிற இலக்கு 74 ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன்பு தில்லி செங்கோட்டையில் முழக்கமாக எழுப்பப்பட்டது. மத்தியிலும், மாநிலங்களிலும் ஆட்சிகள் பல வந்து போயின. ஆனாலும் நிறைவேறாத கனவாகவே அந்த இலக்கு இன்னும் தொடர்ந்து கொண்டிருக்கிறது.
தேசிய புள்ளிவிவர அலுவலகம் வெளியிட்டிருக்கும் 2017-18-க்கான ஆய்வறிக்கையின்படி, இந்தியாவில் எழுதப்படிக்கத் தெரிந்தவர்களின் விகிதம் 77.7%. இதே நிலைமை தொடருமானால் அனைவரும் எழுத்தறிவு பெற்றவர்களாக இருப்பதற்கான 2030 இலக்கு, கனவாகத்தான் போகும்.
1931-இல் லண்டன் சத்தம் ஹவுஸ் கூட்டத்தில் மகாத்மா காந்தி பேசும்போது, எழுத்தறிவு பெற்ற இந்தியா குறித்து அவர் கூறிய கருத்து குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது. 'பிரிட்டிஷ் ஆட்சியாளர்கள் இந்தியாவில் காணப்படும் கல்விமுறையை முழுமையாக அழிப்பதில்தான் ஆர்வம் காட்டுகிறார்கள். ஏற்கெனவே எங்கள் நாட்டில் நிலைபெற்றிருக்கும் கிராமப் பள்ளிக்கூடங்கள் அவர்களுக்கு ஏற்புடையதாக இல்லை. அதிக முதலீட்டுடனும், பொருட்செலவுடனும் நாடு தழுவிய அளவில் அனைவருக்கும் அடிப்படைக் கல்வி வழங்குவது என்பதுதான் அவர்கள் புகுத்த முற்பட்டிருக்கும் கல்விமுறை. இதன் மூலம் பண விரயமும், மடை மாற்றமும் ஏற்படும் அளவுக்குப் பலன் கிடைக்கப் போவதில்லை. அடித்தட்டு மக்களை இந்தக் கல்விமுறை சென்றடையாது' என்பதுதான் காந்திஜியின் 90 ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முந்தைய தீர்க்க தரிசனம்.
இப்போது காணப்படும் கல்வி கற்பதற்கான வசதிகள், இந்தியா சுதந்திரமடைந்ததற்குப் பிறகுதான் கிராமங்களைச் சென்றடைந்தன. சுதந்திர இந்தியா அண்ணல் காந்தியடிகளின் கனவை நனவாக்கும் விதத்தில் கிராமப்புற ஓராசிரியர் பள்ளிகளை ஊக்குவித்திருந்தால் ஒருவேளை இந்தியா எப்போதோ 100% எழுதப்படிக்கத் தெரிந்தவர்கள் இருக்கும் நாடாக உருவாகி இருக்கக்கூடும்.
மேல்நாட்டு பாணியைப் பின்பற்றி மிகப்பெரிய ஊழியர் கட்டமைப்புடனும், முதலீட்டுடனுமான கல்விமுறையை ஏற்றுக்கொண்டு தொடர்ந்து செயல்படுகிறோம். அடிப்படைக் கல்வியை அனைவருக்கும் வழங்குவதற்கான 'கரும்பலகைத் திட்டம்' முதல் 'அனைவருக்கும் கல்வி' திட்டம் வரை எத்தனையோ முயற்சிகளை செய்தும்கூட 77.7% மட்டுமே எழுத்தறிவு நிறைந்தவர்கள் இருக்கும் நாடாகத்தான் நம்மால் மாற முடிந்திருக்கிறது.
இந்திய அரசியல் சட்டத்தின் வழிகாட்டுக் கொள்கைகள் பல வாக்குறுதிகளை வழங்குகின்றன. சட்டப்பிரிவு 41-இன்படி 'வேலை பார்ப்பதற்கான உரிமை, கல்விக்கும் வேலைவாய்ப்புக்குமான உதவி, முதுமை, நோய், உடல் ஊனம் உள்ளிட்ட பிரச்னைகள் ஆகியவற்றுக்குப் பொருளாதார நிலைமையின் அடிப்படையில் அரசு பாதுகாப்பு வழங்கும்' என்று கூறப்பட்டிருக்கிறது. இந்த உத்தரவாதத்தில் மறைமுக நிபந்தனை ஒன்று காணப்படுகிறது. அதாவது 'பொருளாதார நிலைமைக்குத் தகுந்தபடி' என்கிற பாதுகாப்பு அரசுக்கு இருக்கிறது.
அதேபோல, அரசியல் சாசன சட்டப்பிரிவு 45-இன்படி, 'அரசியல் சாசனம் நடைமுறைக்கு வந்த பத்து ஆண்டுகளுக்குள் 14 வயது வரை அனைத்துக் குழந்தைகளுக்கும் கட்டாய இலவசக் கல்வி வழங்குவதற்கு அரசு முயற்சி செய்யும்' என்றும் குறிப்பிடுகிறது. அரசியல் சாசனம் நடைமுறைக்கு வந்து 70 ஆண்டுகள் கடந்து விட்டன. அனைவருக்கும் கல்வி என்பது மட்டுமல்ல, அனைத்து குழந்தைகளுக்கும் தொடக்கக் கல்வியும், இடைநிலைக் கல்வியும் வழங்குவதுகூட வெறும் சம்பிரதாயச் சடங்காக இருக்கிறதே தவிர, முழுமையாக நடைமுறைப்படுத்தப்படவில்லை.
ஏறத்தாழ இந்திய மக்கள்தொகையில் பாதியளவினர் எழுதப்படிக்கத் தெரியாதவர்கள். எழுத்தறிவு பெற்றவர்களில்கூட பலரும் கையொப்பமிடத் தெரிந்தவர்கள் அவ்வளவே.
பல எழுத்தறிவு முயற்சிகள் இந்தியாவில் மேற்கொள்ளப்பட்டிருக்கின்றன. ஐந்தாண்டுத் திட்டங்களில் இலக்குகள் நிர்ணயிக்கப்பட்டு, வழிமுறைகள் வகுக்கப்பட்டு, நிதி ஒதுக்கீடு செய்யப்பட்டு தேசிய அளவில் எழுத்தறிவுத் திட்டங்கள் மேற்கொள்ளப்பட்டிருக்கின்றன. 1988-இல் மத்திய அரசு "தேசிய எழுத்தறிவு திட்ட'த்தை அறிமுகப்படுத்தியது. ஆனால் அது முழுமையான வெற்றியை அடையவில்லை. அது ஓரளவுக்கு வெற்றியடைந்த மாநிலங்களிலும்கூட ஆண்கள் அளவுக்கு பெண்களின் எழுத்தறிவு இல்லை என்கிற வேதனையைக் குறிப்பிடாமல் இருக்க முடியவில்லை.
2009-இல் மன்மோகன் சிங் அரசால் 'ஸாக்ஷர் பாரத் மிஷன்' என்கிற திட்டம் கொண்டு வரப்பட்டது. மார்ச் 2018-க்குள் 7.6 கோடி பேரை எழுதப் படிக்கத் தெரிந்தவர்களாக உருவாக்கியது அந்தத் திட்டம். என்ன காரணத்தாலோ அந்த முனைப்பு தொடரவில்லை.
'அனைவருக்கும் கல்வி' திட்டம் இன்னொரு முயற்சி. இதற்காக பெரிய அளவில் நிதி ஒதுக்கீடு செய்யப்பட்டது. ஆசிரியர்களுக்கு திறன் மேம்பாடு, சமூக ஒத்துழைப்பு, திறன் மேம்பாட்டு பயிற்சியாளர்களை உருவாக்குதல் உள்ளிட்ட பல திட்டங்களுடன் அறிமுகப்படுத்தப்பட்ட 'அனைவருக்கும் கல்வி' திட்டத்துக்கான ஒதுக்கீடுகள் ஆசிரியர்களின் ஊதியமாக வழங்கப்பட்டதுதான் மிச்சம். பள்ளிக் குழந்தைகளின் புரிதல் திறனையும் ஆற்றலையும் மேம்படுத்த முடியவில்லை.
அனைவருக்கும் ஒரே மாதிரியான கல்வி என்கிற மேலை நாட்டு பாணி கல்வி முறையால் உயர் கல்விச்சாலைகளும், பல்கலைக்கழகக் கல்வியும் மேம்பட்டிருப்பதை மறுப்பதற்கில்லை. ஆனால் கிராமப்புறங்களில் வாழ்பவர்களுக்கும், அடித்தட்டு மக்களுக்கும் கல்வி சென்றடையவில்லை. எழுதப் படிக்கத் தெரியாதவர்கள் இல்லாத இந்தியாவை உருவாக்கும் கனவை விட்டுவிட்டு, வாய்ப்புள்ளவர்களுக்கு மட்டுமே கல்வி என்கிற திசையில் நாம் பயணித்துக் கொண்டிருக்கிறோம்!
சமீபகாலமாக குடிமைச் சமூக அமைப்புகள், தன்னாா்வத் தொண்டு நிறுவனங்கள், அந்நிறுவனங்களுக்கு நிதி அளிக்கும் நிதி நிறுவனங்கள் ஆகியவை பல்வேறு சிக்கல்களுக்கு ஆளாகி தங்கள் செயல்பாடுகளைத் தொடர முடியாத சூழலுக்குத் தள்ளப்பட்டுள்ளன. இந்தச் சூழலுக்குக் காரணம் மத்திய அரசாங்கம்தான் என்று சிலா் விவாதம் செய்கின்றனா். இதற்கு அரசாங்கத் தரப்பிலிருந்து ஒரு பதில் தரப்படுகின்றது. ‘அரசாங்கம் மற்ற நிறுவனங்களை எப்படிக் கண்காணிக்கின்றதோ அப்படித்தான் இந்தத் தொண்டு நிறுவனங்களையும் கண்காணிக்கின்றது. எதற்காக நிதி பெற்றாா்களோ அதற்குச் செலவு செய்து முறையாக செயல்பட்டால் அந்த நிறுவனங்களை அரசாங்கம் என்ன செய்ய முடியும்’ என்று விளக்கமளிக்கிறது அரசாங்கம்.
உண்மை என்பது இந்த இரு தரப்புக்கும் இடையில் இருக்கின்றது. ‘சமீபகாலமாக குடிமைச் சமூக அமைப்புகளாலும் தொண்டு நிறுவனங்களாலும் அரசாங்கத்திற்கு நெருக்கடி ஏற்படுகின்றது. பொருளாதார வளா்ச்சிகளை நடைமுறைப்படுத்த முடியாமல் அரசாங்கச் செயல்பாடுகள் மக்கள் போராட்டங்களால் தடுக்கப்படுகின்றன. இதற்கு இந்த அமைப்புக்கள்தான் காரணம். அப்பாவி மக்களை இந்த அமைப்புக்கள் தூண்டி விடுகின்றன’ என்ற குற்றச்சாட்டை, புதிய பொருளாதாரக் கொள்கைகளை அமல்படுத்திய காலம் முதல் மத்திய - மாநில அரசாங்கங்கள் முன்வைக்கின்றன.
இந்த நேரத்தில் ஒன்றை நாம் தெளிவாகப் புரிந்து கொள்ள வேண்டும். நல்ல குடிமைச் சமூக அமைப்புக்களோ தன்னாா்வத் தொண்டு நிறுவனங்களோ தேசதுரோகச் செயல்களில் ஈடுபடுவதில்லை. அவா்களுடைய மக்கள் சேவையை நாம் குறைத்து மதிப்பிட முடியாது. இந்த அமைப்புக்கள் அரசுடன் கைகோத்து பல்வேறு பணிகள் செய்து வருகின்றன என்பதை அரசும் மறுக்கவில்லை.
உலகமயப் பொருளாதாரத்தை முன்னெடுத்துச் செயல்படும்போது உள்கட்டமைப்புக்களை உருவாக்குகின்றோம் என்ற பெயரில் பெரிய அளவில் இயற்கை வளங்கள் சூறையாடப்படுகின்றன. இந்த வளங்களை நம்பி வாழ்ந்து வந்த மக்கள் அங்கிருந்து விரட்டப்படுகின்றனா். சுற்றுச்சூழல் மிகப்பெரிய பாதிப்புக்கு ஆளானதால் சுற்றுச்சூழல் ஆா்வலா்களும், உரிமை பேணும் அமைப்புக்களும் மக்களைத் திரட்டி மிகப்பெரும் போராட்டங்களை முன்னெடுக்கின்றனா். பொதுவாகவே பெரும்பாலான கருத்தாளா்களும், அரசியல்வாதிகளும் சுற்றுச்சூழல் பற்றி பேசுவோரை வளா்ச்சிக்கும் மேம்பாட்டுக்கும் எதிரானவா்கள் என்று சித்திரிப்பாா்கள்.
உலகம் எங்கும் முதலீட்டாளா்களுக்கு அரசு உத்தரவாதம் கொடுத்து முதலீடுகளை ஈா்த்து வருகின்றது. ஆனால் அந்த முதலீட்டாளா்கள் எதிா்பாா்த்த அளவுக்கு தங்கு தடையற்ற செயல்பாடுகளுக்கு முட்டுக்கட்டையாக மக்கள் போராட்டங்கள் சிறிதும் பெரிதுமாக வெடித்துக் கிளம்புகின்றன.
அதனால், அரசு தன்னாா்வ தொண்டு நிறுவனங்களை கூா்ந்து கவனித்து எங்கிருந்து நிதி வருகிறது, எதற்காக வருகிறது, எதற்கு செலவழிக்கப்படுகிறது என்பதை ஆய்வு செய்ய ஆரம்பித்தது. ஒரு சில நிறுவனங்கள் தன்னாா்வத் தொண்டு நிறுவனங்கள் என்ற பெயரில் நிதியினைப் பெற்று அரசாங்கத்திற்கு எதிரான மனநிலையை மக்கள் மத்தியில் உருவாக்க செயல்பட்டது கண்டுபிடிக்கப்பட்டது. இந்த நிகழ்வுகள் அனைத்தும் இருபது ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன்பே ஆரம்பித்தன. அரசாங்கம், காா்ப்பரேட்டுகளுக்காக தன்னாா்வத் தொண்டு நிறுவனங்களை நெருக்கடிக்கு உள்ளாக்குகிறது என்ற குற்றச்சாட்டு எழுந்தது.
அதே நேரத்தில் இந்தியாவில் நடந்த பல போராட்டங்களுக்கு பல வெளிநாட்டு நிறுவனங்களிடமிருந்து தாராளமாக நிதி வந்தது. இந்தத் தன்னாா்வத் தொண்டு நிறுவனங்கள் நிதியைக் கையாள்வதில் தவறுகள் செய்துள்ளன என்ற குற்றச்சாட்டை முன்வைத்து அவா்களுக்கு வெளிநாடுகளிலிருந்து வந்த நிதியினை வர இயலாமல் அவா்களுக்கு இருந்த அனுமதியை ரத்து செய்து விட்டது மத்திய அரசு. அதனைத் தொடா்ந்து, இந்த நடவடிக்கைகள் மேலும் கடினமாக்கப்பட்டு பல நிறுவனங்கள் செயல்பட முடியாத அளவிற்கு நடவடிக்கைகளை எடுத்தது மத்திய அரசு.
பொது நிா்வாகவியல் அறிஞா் ஒருவா் இந்தியாவைப் பற்றிக் கூறும்போது, ‘இந்தியாவில் சட்டம் இயற்றுதல் நன்கு நடைபெற்றுவிடும். இயற்றப்பட்ட சட்டங்களை நடைமுறைப்படுத்துவதில் தான் மிகப்பெரும் தவறுகளும், ஊழல்களும் நடைபெறுகின்றன’ என்று கூறினாா். சட்டத்தைக் கடைப்பிடிப்பது என்பது அனைவருக்குமான கலாசாரமாக இருக்க வேண்டும். ஆனால் சட்டத்தை மீறுவது என்பது இந்தியாவில் கலாசாரமாக மாறிவிட்டது. பல நேரங்களில் சட்டம் இயற்றுவதே, அந்தச் சட்டத்தை மீறுபவா்களிடமிருந்து பணம் பெற முடியும் என்பதற்காகத்தான் என்று கூறுவாா்கள்.
அந்த நிலையில் தன்னாா்வத் தொண்டு நிறுவனங்களிலும் இந்த விதிமீறல்கள் நடந்தன. எதற்காகப் பணம் பெறப்பட்டதோ அதை நிறுவன உயா்மட்ட உறுப்பினா்கள் அல்லது தலைவா் வேண்டுவதற்கெல்லாம் மாற்றி செலவழித்து செயல்பட்டு வந்தனா். பல நேரங்களில் வெளிநாட்டு நிதியால் அரசுக்கு எதிராக செயல்பட அந்த நிறுவனங்கள் முன்வந்தன என்ற குற்றச்சாட்டை அரசு முன் வைத்தது.
இந்தச் சூழலில், உலகில் பத்து நிறுவனங்கள் ஒன்று சோ்ந்து தன்னாா்வத் தொண்டு நிறுவனங்களுக்கு தங்களுடைய செயல்பாடுகளில் மக்களுக்கான கடமைப்பாடுகளை உறுதிப்படுத்த 12 கட்டளைகள் தயாா் செய்துள்ளன. இந்தத் தொண்டு நிறுவனங்கள் தங்களை தாங்களே நெறிப்படுத்திக் கொள்ள இந்த வரைமுறையை உருவாக்கி உள்ளனா். இந்தக் கடமைப்பாடுகளை மேற்கொள்வதன் மூலம் சமூகத்தில் உருவாகும் விளைவுகளை அதிகப்படுத்திக் கொள்ளலாம். அப்படிச் செய்வதன் மூலம் ஒரு நியாயமான சமூகத்தை உருவாக்கலாம்.
அதற்கு பலதரப்பட்ட பங்காளா்களுடன் இணைந்து தேவையின் அடிப்படையில் தன்னாா்வ தொண்டு நிறுவனங்கள் செயல்பாடுகளை வடிவமைத்து வெளிப்படைத் தன்மையுடன் நடந்து சமூகத்தில் மாற்றங்களைக் கொண்டுவர வேண்டும். இதன் மூலம் தொடா்ந்து நம் செயல்பாடுகளில் முன்னேற்றம், பங்காளா்களுடன் இணைந்து அனைவா் மத்தியிலும் நம்பிக்கையை உருவாக்கி செயல்பட முனைய வேண்டும்.
இந்த 12 கடமைப்பாடுகளும் மூன்று தொகுதிகளில் வரையறுக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன. தொகுதி ஒன்றில் நாம் என்ன சாதிக்க முனைகின்றோம், தொகுதி இரண்டு, மாற்றத்திற்கான நம் அணுகுமுறை எப்படிப்பட்டது, தொகுதி மூன்று நம் நிறுவனத்திற்குள் எப்படி நாம் செயல்படுகிறோம் என்பது. முதல் கட்டளை அல்லது கடமைப்பாடு சமத்துவம் மற்றும் நீதிக்காக எப்படிச் செயல்படுவது, இரண்டாவது அண்டத்தில் இருக்கும் கோள்களைப் பாதுகாக்க எப்படிச் செயல்பட வேண்டும், மூன்றாவது பெண்கள் உரிமை, பெண்களுக்கான சமத்துவம் கிடைத்திட எப்படிச் செயல்படுவது, நான்காவது, தொண்டு நிறுவனங்கள் கொண்டு வருகின்ற மாற்றத்தினை எப்படி நிலைக்கச் செய்வது, ஐந்து, எந்தப் பணியும் மக்களின் தேவையின் அடிப்படையில் எப்படிச் செய்வது, ஆறு, எப்படி வலுவான பங்காளா்களை உருவாக்கிச் செயல்படுவது, ஏழு, எப்படி நிறுவனத்தை ஒளிவு மறைவின்றி வைத்துக் கொள்ளுதல், எட்டு, அடிப்படை மாற்றத்திற்கு எப்படி சேவை செய்தல், ஒன்பது, திறன் கூட்டப்பட்ட தன்னாா்வலா்களை நிறுவனத்துக்கு எப்படி தயாா் செய்வது, பத்து, மக்களுக்கு பதில் கூறுவதற்கான முடிவுகளை எப்படி எடுப்பது, பதினொன்று, நிதியினை எப்படி முறையாகக் கையாளுதல், பன்னிரண்டு, பொறுப்பு மிக்க தலைமையை எப்படி உருவாக்குவது. இவை அனைத்தையும் உலகத் தரத்தில் வைத்து எப்படி நிறுவனங்களை நடத்துவது என்பதை விளக்கமாகக் கூறுகிறது அந்த அறிக்கை.
இந்த பன்னிரண்டு கட்டளைகளும் உலகத்தரத்தில் செயல்படுத்தப்பட்டால், சமூகத்தில் நிலைத்த மாற்றங்களைக் கொண்டு வந்து விடலாம். அடிப்படையில் இவை அனைத்தும் நாம் செய்யும் பணி என்பது சமூகத்தில் அடிப்படை மாற்றத்தை ஏற்படுத்திட வேண்டும் என்பதையும், நாம் செயல்பட்டுக் கொண்டு வருகின்ற மாற்றங்கள் சமூகத்தில் நிலைத்திடும் அளவுக்கு இருக்க வேண்டும் என்பதையும் வலியுறுத்துகின்றன. இன்று சுற்றுச்சூழல் பாதிப்பு, பருவநிலை மாற்றம், அடிக்கடி நிகழும் இயற்கைப் பேரிடா் இவற்றைப் பின்புலத்தில் வைத்துச் செயல்பட வேண்டும்.
அப்படிச் செயல்படும்போது சமத்துவம், நீதி, பெண்கள் மேம்பாடு அகியவை நம் நிறுவனச் செயல்பாட்டில் ஒன்று கலந்திருக்க வேண்டும். அடுத்து, எல்லாச் செயல்பாடுகளும் மக்கள் தேவையில் வடிவமைக்கப்பட வேண்டும். நிதி இருக்கின்றது என்பதற்காக எந்தப் பணியும் செய்யக்கூடாது. தேவை இருந்தால் மட்டுமே செயல்பாடு. அது மட்டுமல்ல, பயன் பெறுவோா், செயல்பாடுகளில் பங்களிப்புச் செய்து மேம்பாட்டுக்குச் சொந்தக்காரா்களாகிவிட வேண்டும். நிதியைப் பயன்படுத்தும்போது, அந்த நிதி எதற்காகக் கொடுக்கப்பட்டதோ அந்தப் பணிக்கு மட்டுமே பயன்படுத்த வேண்டும். பணியாற்றும்போது நிறுவனச் செயல்பாடு என்பது திறந்த புத்தகமாக இருக்க வேண்டும்.
இந்த நிறுவனச் செயல்பாடுகளில் ஊழியா்களாகச் செயல்படுவோா் அனைவரும் நிபுணத்துவம் பெற்றவா்களாக இருக்க வேண்டும். அவா்களுடைய செயல்திறன் தொடா்ந்து கூட்டப்பட வேண்டும். நிறுவனங்களுக்கு பொறுப்புமிக்க தலைவா் இருக்க வேண்டும். அவா் நிறுவனத்தை நடத்துவதில் நிபுணத்துவம் பெற்றவராகவும், மக்களின் பிரச்சினைகளுக்கு தீா்வு காணும் திறன் மிக்கவராகவும் இருக்க வேண்டும்.
இந்தக் கடமைப்பாடுகளை கட்டளைகளாக ஒவ்வொரு நிறுவனமும் கடைப்பிடித்து செயல்பட்டால் எவருக்கும் பதில் கூற வேண்டிய நிா்ப்பந்தம் இருக்காது. இந்தக் கட்டளைகளை அனுசரிப்பதில் தளா்வுகள் இருக்கக் கூடாது: ஒவ்வொரு நிறுவனமும் தானாக முன்வந்து கடைப்பிடிக்க முனைய வேண்டும்.
ஒவ்வொரு நாளும் இந்தியா முழுவதும் 13,000 ரயில்கள் மூலம் 2.4 கோடி பயணிகளை சுமந்துகொண்டு 67,956 கி.மீ. பயணம் செய்யும் இந்திய ரயில்வேயின் காா்பன் அடித்தடம் மிகப்பெரியது. இத்தகைய இந்திய ரயில்வே 2030-ஆம் ஆண்டுக்குள் உலகின் முதல் காா்பன் உமிழ்வற்ற ரயில்வேயாக மாறும் என்பது நமக்கு மகிழ்வான செய்தி.
இந்திய ரயில்வே, நாட்டின் மிகப்பெரிய மின்சார நுகா்வோா் நிறுவனங்களில் ஒன்றாகும். இந்திய ரயில்வே 2020- ஆம் ஆண்டில் இழுவை சுமைகளுக்கு (ரயில்கள்) ஏறத்தாழ 1,841 கோடி யூனிட்களையும், இழுவை அல்லாத பணிகளுக்கு (அலுவலகம், ரயில் நிலையங்கள்) 233.8 கோடி யூனிட்களையும் பயன்படுத்தியது. இதற்கென ஒவ்வொரு ஆண்டும் மின்சார கட்டணமாக கிட்டத்தட்ட ரூ.11,045 கோடியை செலவழிக்கிறது. இது மொத்த ரயில்வே இயக்கச் செலவில் 7 சதவீதமாகும்.
நாளொன்றுக்கு 0.33 கோடி டன் சரக்குகளைக் கையாளும் இந்திய ரயில்வே, 2020-21-ஆம் ஆண்டில் 120 கோடி டன் சரக்குகளைக் கையாண்டுள்ளது. இதற்கான எரிபொருள் தேவை அதிகம். முந்தைய ரயில்வே அமைச்சகத்தின் கூற்றுப்படி, 2014 - 2019 ஆண்டுகளுக்கிடையில் 115.45 லட்சம் கிலோ லிட்டா் அதிவேக டீசலை இந்திய ரயில்வே பயன்படுத்தியது. மொத்த பசுங்குடில் வாயு உமிழ்வில் 12 சதவீதம் இந்திய போக்குவரத்துத் துறையினால் உண்டானது என்கிறது ஆய்வு. இந்த உமிழ்வில் ரயில்வேயின் பங்கு 4 சதவீதமாகும்.
சரக்குகளை ரயில் மூலம் அனுப்புவதால் மொத்த உள்நாட்டு உற்பத்தியில் சரக்கு கையாளுவதற்கான செலவுகளை 14 சதவீதத்திலிருந்து 10 சதவீதமாகக் குறைக்கலாம் எனவும், 2050-ஆம் ஆண்டுக்குள் கரியமிலவாயு உமிழ்வை 70 சதவீதம் குறைக்கலாம் எனவும் நீதி ஆயோக்கின் சமீபத்திய ஆய்வறிக்கை கூறுகிறது.
போக்குவரத்துத் துறையின் ஒட்டுமொத்த உமிழ்வைக் குறைக்கும் வகையில் 2015-ஆம் ஆண்டில் 35 சதவீத சரக்குப் போக்குவரத்தைக் கையாண்ட இந்திய ரயில்வே, 2030-ஆம் ஆண்டுக்குள் சரக்குப் போக்குவரத்து அளவை 45 சதவீதமாக உயா்த்த திட்டமிட்டுள்ளது.
2030-ஆம் ஆண்டுக்குள் காா்பன் உமிழ்வற்ற ரயில்வேயாக மாற்றவேண்டும் என்ற குறிக்கோளுடன் பல திட்டங்களை இந்திய ரயில்வே செயல்படுத்தி வருகிறது. தனது துறையினை பசுமையாக்க பல்வேறு நடவடிக்கைகளை எடுத்து வருகிறது. அதன் ஆற்றல் நுகா்வினைக் குறைக்க, புதுப்பிக்கத்தக்க ஆற்றல் ஆதாரத்தை அதிகரிப்பதிலிருந்து அதன் இழுவை வலையமைப்பை மின்மயமாக்குதல் வரை பல பணிகளைச் செய்து வருகிறது.
2023-ஆம் ஆண்டு டிசம்பா் மாதத்திற்குள் முழு ரயில்வே துறையையும் மின்மயமாக்கும் இலக்கினை கொண்ட திட்டம் செயல்படுத்தப்பட்டு வருகிறது. 2024-ஆம் நிதியாண்டில் முழுமையான மின்மயமாக்கப்படவுள்ள இந்திய ரயில்வேயின் மொத்த இழுவைத் தேவை சுமாா் 3,400 மெகாவாட்டாக அதிகரிக்கும் என எதிா்பாா்க்கப்படுகிறது.
2021-ஆம் ஆண்டு ஜனவரி மாத நிலவரப்படி, 42,354 கிலோ மீட்டா் ரயில்வே வழித்தடம் மின்மயமாக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. மின்மயமாக்கலில் அதிக கவனம் செலுத்தியதன் காரணமாக இந்திய ரயில்வேயின் டீசல் நுகா்வு கணிசமாகக் குறைந்துள்ளது.
சுற்றுச்சூழலுக்கு உகந்த உள்கட்டமைப்பு, நுண்ணிய நிலை தூய்மை இயக்கம் ஆகியவற்றுடன் உலகின் மிகப்பெரிய 100 சதவீத மின்மயமாக்கப்பட்ட ரயில் போக்குவரத்தாக அமைய இருக்கும் இந்திய ரயில்வே அதன் மின்சாரத் தேவையைப் பூா்த்தி செய்ய சூரியசக்தியைப் பயன்படுத்தவுள்ளது.
இந்திய ரயில்வே இழுவை, இழுவை அல்லாத மின்சாரப் பயன்பாட்டிற்க்காக 20 ஜிகாவாட் சூரிய மின்சக்தி உற்பத்தி மையங்களை நிறுவத் திட்டமிட்டுள்ளது. அதன்படி, 2020-ஆம் ஆண்டு ஜூலை மாதம் மத்திய பிரதேசம் பினாவில் 1.7 மெகாவாட் சூரிய மின்சக்தி உற்பத்தி மையத்தை இந்திய ரயில்வே நிறுவியது. அரசுக்குச் சொந்தமான ‘பாரத் ஹெவி எலக்ட்ரிக்கல்ஸ் லிமிடெட்’ நிறுவனத்துடன் இணைந்து உருவாக்கப்பட்ட இந்த மையம் மின்பாதைகளின் வழியே ரயில் என்ஜின்களுக்கு நேரடியாக மின்சாரம் வழங்கும் உலகின் முதல் சூரிய ஆற்றல் மையமாகும்.
பசுமைப் போக்குவரத்திற்கு உறுதி பூண்டுள்ள இந்திய ரயில்வே தனது இழுவை சக்தித் தேவைகளுக்கு சூரிய ஆற்றலைப் பயன்படுத்த ரயில்வே துறைக்கு சொந்தமான நிலத்தில் சூரிய மின் உற்பத்தி நிலையங்களை அமைக்க முடிவு செய்துள்ளது. ஹரியாணா மாநிலம் திவானாவில் 2.5 மெகாவாட் சூரிய மின்சக்தி திட்டம் தொடங்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.
சத்தீஸ்கா் மாநிலம் பிலாயில் 50 மெகாவாட் திறன் கொண்ட மூன்றாவது சூரிய மின்சக்தி திட்டப் பணியும் தொடங்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. இங்கு உற்பத்தியாகும் மின்சாரம், சத்தீஸ்கருக்கு மட்டுமல்லாமல், பிற மாநிலங்களின் துணை மின்நிலையங்களுக்கும் கொண்டு செல்லப்படும்.
மாநிலங்களுக்கு இடையேயான பரிமாற்றக் கட்டணங்களின்றி பிலாய் ஆலையின் மூலம் உற்பத்தி செய்யப்படும் 50 மெகாவாட் மின்சாரம், ரயில்களுக்கு மின்சாரம் வழங்க பயன்படுத்தப்படும். உத்தரபிரதேச மாநிலம் சாஹிபாபாத் ரயில் நிலையத்தில் மத்திய மின்னணு நிறுவனம் மூலம் உருவாக்கப்பட்ட 16 கிலோவாட் சூரிய மின்சக்தி உற்பத்தி மையம், ரயில் நிலைய தங்குமிடமாகவும் செயல்படுகிறது.
ரயில்வே அமைச்சகம் சுமாா் ஆயிரம் ரயில் நிலையங்களில் சோலாா் பேனல்களை நிறுவி அந்தந்த ரயில் நிலையங்களின் மின்தேவையை பூா்த்தி செய்கிறது. 198 மெகாவாட் மின் உற்பத்திக்கான சோலாா் பேனல்களை பொருத்துவதற்கான பணி தொடங்கி விட்டது.
இந்தியாவின் 11 மாநிலங்களிலும், தாமோதா் பள்ளத்தாக்குப் பகுதியிலும் சூரிய மின்சக்தி பயன்பாட்டுக்கென
ரயில்வே நிா்வாகத்திற்கு உரிமம் வழங்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. மேற்கு வங்கம், தமிழ்நாடு, சத்தீஸ்கா், ஒடிஸா, ஆந்திர பிரதேசம், கேரளம், தெலங்கானா ஆகிய மாநிலங்களில் சூரிய மின்சக்திப் பயன்பாட்டுக்கென தடையில்லாச் சான்றிதழ் இதுவரை பெறப்படவில்லை. அதனை பெற ரயில்வே நிா்வாகம் முயன்று வருகிறது.
பசுங்குடில் வாயு உமிழ்வைக் குறைத்து உலகின் முதல் காா்பன் உமிழ்வற்ற ரயில்வேயாக மாறவிருக்கும் இந்திய ரயில்வேயைப் பாராட்டுவதோடு, இந்தியராக நாம் பெருமிதமும் கொள்வோம்.
ஜோ பைடன், அரை நூற்றாண்டுகால பொது வாழ்க்கைக்கு சொந்தகாரர். தனது வாழ்க்கையில் பல வெற்றிகளையும் தோல்விகளையும் சந்தித்திருக்கிறார். இறுதியாக, 'தி ஐசிங் ஆன் தி கேக்' என்ற பழமொழிக்கு ஏற்றார்போல் அதிபர் தேர்தலில் ட்ரம்ப்பை தோற்கடித்து வெற்றி கண்டார்.
பைடனின் ஆரம்ப கால வாழ்க்கை
டெலாவேர் மாகாண உள்ளூர் அரசியலில் பிரபலமாக இருந்த ஜோ பைடன், 1972 ஆம் ஆண்டு நடைபெற்ற தேர்தலில் குடியரசு கட்சியின் மூத்த தலைவரை தோற்கடித்து 30 வயதில் செனட் சபை உறுப்பினரானார். துரதிர்ஷ்டவசமாக, தேர்தலில் வெற்றி பெற்று சில வாரங்களிலேயே அவரின் மனைவியும் மகளும் கார் விபத்தில் சிக்கி உயிரிழந்தனர்.
படுகாயம் அடைந்த தன் மகன்களான பியூ, ஹன்டர் ஆகியோரை பார்த்துகொள்ள தனது பதவியை ராஜினாமா செய்ய முடிவெடுத்தார். இருப்பினும், சிலரின் அறிவுறுத்தலால் அரசியலில் தொடர்ந்த அவர், 1973 ஆம் ஆண்டு, ஜனவரி 5 ஆம் தேதி செனட் சபை உறுப்பினராக பொறுப்பேற்றுக் கொண்டார். 2008 ஆம் ஆண்டு வரை, நாடாளுமன்றத்தின் மேலவை உறுப்பினராக தொடர்ந்தார்.
இனவாத விவகாரத்தில் பைடனின் நிலைப்பாடு என்ன?
கடந்த, 1970களில், கருப்பின குழந்தைகளை வெள்ளையினத்தவர் படிக்கும் பள்ளிகளில் சேர்க்க 'பஸ்ஸிங்' என்ற திட்டத்தை அரசு வகுத்தது. இதன்மூலம், கருப்பின குழந்தைகள் வெள்ளையின குழந்தைகளுடன் சேர்ந்து படிக்க வாய்ப்பு கிடைத்தது. ஆனால், இந்த திட்டத்தை பைடன் கடுமையாக எதிர்த்தார்.
ஜனநாயக கட்சியின் அதிபர் வேட்பாளரை தேர்ந்தெடுக்கும் போட்டியில் செனட் சபை உறுப்பினரான கமலா, இந்த விவகாரத்தை முன்வைத்து கடுமையாக தாக்கி பேசினார். இருந்த போதிலும், கமலா ஹாரிஸை தனது துணை அதிபர் வேட்பாளராக பைடன் அறிவித்தார்.
தகவல் திருட்டு சர்ச்சையில் சிக்கிய பைடன்
1987ஆம் ஆண்டு, நாற்பது வயதை எட்டியிருந்த துடிப்பான பைடன் முதல் முறையாக அதிபர் தேர்தலில் போட்டியிட முனைப்பு காட்டினார். தொடக்கத்தில் பலர் அவரை வரவேற்றிருந்தாலும் மிக மோசமான வகையில் வேட்பாளர் தேர்விலேயே தோல்வியை தழுவினார். பரப்புரைகளின் போது, மற்றவர்களின் கருத்தை அவர் திருடி பேசுவதாக குற்றச்சாட்டு எழுப்பப்பட்டது.
தவறுகளை ஒப்பு கொண்ட பைடன்
1991 ஆம் ஆண்டு, செனட் நீதி ஆணையத்தின் தலைவராக பைடன் இருந்த போது, நீதிபதி கிளாரன்ஸ் தாமஸ் மீது சட்டத்துறை பேராசிரியர் அனிதா ஹில் என்பவர் பாலியல் புகார் அளித்தார். இதுகுறித்த வழக்கு விசாரணையை தொலைக்காட்சியில் ஒளிபரப்பு செய்தார் பைடன். விசாரணையின் போது, வெள்ளையின ஆண்களால் நிறைந்திருந்த நீதிக்குழு அனிதாவிடம் கடுமையாக நடந்துக் கொண்டு பல அறுவருக்க தக்க கேள்விகளை எழுப்பியது. இது பலரால் விமர்சிக்கப்பட்டது.
பின்னர், இச்சம்பவத்திற்காக பைடன் மன்னிப்பு கோரினார். மூன்று ஆண்டுகளுக்கு பிறகு, பெண்களுக்கு எதிரான வன்முறைச் சட்டத்தை கொண்டு வந்தார். சட்டத்துறையில் தன்னுடைய மிகச் சிறந்த சாதனையாக அதனை அவர் கருதுகிறார்.
நீதித்துறையில் சீர்திருத்தங்களை மேற்கொள்ளும் விதமாக கொண்டு வரப்பட்ட ஒரு குற்றச் சட்டம் மிக கடுமையாக விமர்சிக்கப்பட்டது. அந்த சட்டத்தை கொண்டு வந்ததில் மிக முக்கிய பங்காற்றியவர் பைடன்.
அமெரிக்காவில் குற்றச் செயல்கள் அதிகரித்திருந்த போது, பில் கிளிண்டன் தலைமையிலான அரசு எதிர்க்கட்சிகளுடன் ஒன்றிணைந்து கடும் சட்டத்தை கொண்டு வந்தது. 1994 ஆம் ஆண்டு இயற்றப்பட்ட அந்த குற்றச் சட்டத்தினால், அமெரிக்காவின் சிறைகளில் சிறைவாசிகள் அதிகரித்தனர். குறிப்பாக, ஆப்பிரிக்கஅமெரிக்கர்கள் சிறைவாசிகள் ஆனார்கள். கிராக் எனப்படும் போதை பொருளை பயன்படுத்துவர்கள் மீது கடுமையான தண்டனைகள் விதிக்கப்பட்டது. அதனை ஏழை மக்கள் அதிகமாக பயன்படுத்தினர். ட்ரம்ப்புடனான இறுதி விவாதத்தில், இந்த விவகாரத்தில் தான் செய்தது தவறு என பைடன் ஒப்புக் கொண்டார்.
வெளியுறவு விவகார ஆணையம் நடத்திய விசாரணையில், சதாம் உசேன் அதிக எண்ணிக்கையில் அணு ஆயுதங்களை வைத்திருப்பதாக பலர் தவறான கருத்துகளை தெரிவித்தனர். இதனால், 2002 ஆம் ஆண்டு அந்த ஆணையத்தின் தலைவராக இருந்த பைடன், ஈராக் போருக்கு ஆதரவான நிலைபாட்டை எடுத்தார். பின்னர், இதிலும் தான் தவறான முடிவை எடுத்ததாக அவர் ஒப்புக் கொண்டார்.
ஒபாமாவுக்கு நெருக்கமாக கருதப்பட்ட பைடன்
உலகமே பொருளாதார மந்த நிலையில் சிக்கி தவித்தபோது, பைடனை தனது துணை அதிபர் வேட்பாளராக ஒபாமா தேர்ந்தெடுத்தார். தேர்தலில் வெற்றி பெற்றதைத் தொடர்ந்து, 2009ஆம் ஆண்டு பைடன் துணை அதிபராக பொறுப்பேற்றுக் கொண்டார். சிறப்பாக செயல்பட்ட பைடன், 800 பில்லியன் அமெரிக்க டாலர்கள் மதிப்பிலான திட்டத்தை நிறைவேற்ற நாடாளுமன்றத்தின் அனுமதியை பெற்றார். இந்த பொறுப்பை ஒபாமா அவருக்கு வழங்கியிருந்தார். இந்த திட்டத்தின் வெற்றி காரணமாக, அமெரிக்க பொருளாதாரம் மீண்டது.
கடந்த, 2016 ஆம் ஆண்டு, பைடனின் மூத்த மகன் மூளை புற்றுநோயால் உயிரிழந்தார். இதன் காரணமாக, அதிபர் வேட்பாளருக்கான தேர்தலில் பைடன் போட்டியிட முடியாமல் போனது.
கடந்த 2019 ஆம் ஆண்டு, ட்ரம்ப்பை தோற்கடிக்க பைடன் தனது பரப்புரையை தொடங்கினார். ஆப்பிரிக்க அமெரிக்கர்களின் ஆதரவால், ஜனநாயக கட்சியின் அதிபர் வேட்பாளர் தேர்வில் பைடன் வெற்றி பெற்றார். இறுதியில், கரோனாவுக்கு மத்தியில் யாரும் கண்டிராத பரப்புரையை மேற்கொண்டு ட்ரம்ப்பை வீழ்த்தினார்.
அதிபராக பைடன் சந்தித்த சவால்கள்
இன்று, 79ஆவது பிறந்த நாளை காணும் பைடன், அதிபராக பொறுப்பு வகிக்கும் மிக வயதான நபர் ஆவார். வரும் ஜனவரி 20ஆம் தேதியோடு, அமெரிக்க அதிபராக ஜோ பைடன் பொறுப்பு ஏற்று ஓராண்டு காலம் நிறைவாகவுள்ளது. இந்த ஓராண்டு காலத்தில், அவர் சந்தித்த சவால்கள் ஏராளம். பெருந்தொற்று தொடங்கி ஆப்கானிஸ்தான் விவகாரம் வரை, பைடன் மீது கலவையான விமர்சனங்களே வைக்கப்படுகிறது.
குறிப்பாக, ஆப்கானிஸ்தான் விவகாரத்தில், அங்கிருந்து படைகளை அமெரிக்கா திரும்ப பெற்று கொண்டது. அமெரிக்க படைகள் வெளியேறிய ஒரு சில நாள்களிலேயே, ஆப்கானிஸ்தானின் முழு கட்டுப்பாடும் தலிபான்கள் கீழ்வந்து சேர்ந்தது. இது, பைடனுக்கு மிகப் பெரிய பின்னடைவாக பார்க்கப்படுகிறது. உலக பயங்கரவாதத்திற்கு எதிரான போர் என்ற பெயரில் தொடுக்கப்பட்ட ஆப்கானிஸ்தான் போரின் முடிவு என்ன என பைடனை நோக்கி கேள்விகள் குவிகின்றன.
உலகின் மிக பெரிய வல்லரசாக உருவெடுத்துள்ள சீனாவை கையாளும் விவகாரத்திலும் பைடன் தலைமையிலான அமெரிக்க திணறிவருகிறது. மேற்கத்திய நாடுகள், இந்தியா, ஜப்பான், ஆஸ்திரேலியா என பல நாடுகளின் ஆதரவு அமெரிக்காவுக்கு இருந்தபோதிலும், சீனாவின் ஆதிக்கத்திற்கு பைடனால் முடிவுரை எழுத முடியவில்லை.
உலகம் முழுவதும் சர்வாதிகாரிகளின் ஆதிக்கம் தொடர்ந்து அதிகரித்துவரும் நிலையில், மனித உரிமைகள் கேள்விக்குள்ளாகும் சமயத்தில் ஜனநாயகத்தின் தாயகமாக திகழும் அமெரிக்காவுக்கும் பைடனுக்கு பொறுப்பு அதிகமாகவே உள்ளது.
கடந்தாண்டு நிறைவேற்றப்பட்ட மூன்று வேளாண் சட்டங்களும் வாபஸ் பெறப்படுவதாக பிரதமர் நரேந்திர மோடி அறிவித்தார். இந்த மூன்று சட்டங்களும் சட்டப்படி நடைபெறவிருக்கும் நாடாளுமன்ற கூட்டத்தொடரில் ரத்து செய்யப்படும் என தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டது.
சட்டங்கள் ரத்து செய்யப்படுவது என்றால் என்ன?
சட்டம் நடைமுறையில் இருக்க வேண்டிய அவசியம் இல்லை என நாடாளுமன்றம் கருதும் போது, சட்டம் ரத்து செய்யப்படுகிறது. சில சட்டங்கள் Sunset Clause முறை கொண்டிருக்கும். குறிப்பிட்ட தேதி வந்தவுடன், அச்சட்டம் நடைமுறையிலிருந்து நீக்கப்படுகிறது. எடுத்துக்காட்டாக, 1987இல் கொண்டு வரப்பட்ட பயங்கரவாத எதிர்ப்புச் சட்டம் பயங்கரவாத மற்றும் சீர்குலைக்கும் நடவடிக்கைகள் (தடுப்பு) சட்டம் Sunset Clause முறையை கொண்டுள்ளது. இச்சட்டம் 1995இல் ரத்து செய்யும் வகையில் இயற்றப்பட்டது.
அதே சமயம், Sunset Clause முறை இல்லாத சட்டங்களை, நாடாளுமன்றத்தில் புதிய சட்டத்தை இயற்றி ரத்து செய்யலாம்.
சட்டத்தை அரசாங்கம் எப்படி ரத்து செய்ய முடியும்?
அரசியலமைப்பின் 245ஆவது சட்டப்பிரிவின்படி, இந்தியா முழுவதும் சட்டங்களை உருவாக்கும் அதிகாரத்தை நாடாளுமன்றம் கொண்டுள்ளது. அதே போல், மாநில சட்டப்பேரவைகளுக்கு அந்தந்த மாநிலத்திற்கான சட்டங்களை உருவாக்கும் அதிகாரம் உள்ளது. அதே வகையில்,சட்டங்களை ரத்து செய்யும் அதிகாரமும் நாடாளுமன்றத்திற்கு உள்ளது.
ஒரு சட்டம் முழுவதுமாகவோ, பகுதியாகவோ அல்லது மற்ற சட்டங்களுக்கு முரணாக இருக்கும் பட்சத்தில், அதனை ரத்து செய்துவிடலாம்.
சட்டத்தை ரத்து செய்வதற்கான செயல்முறை என்ன?
சட்டங்களை இரண்டு வழிகளில் ரத்து செய்யப்படலாம். ஒன்று அவசர சட்டம் அல்லது புதிய சட்டம் ஆகும்.
அவசரச் சட்டம் பிறப்பிக்கப்படும் பட்சத்தில், ஆறு மாதங்களுக்குள் நாடாளுமன்றத்தில் அதற்கு பதிலாக புதிய சட்டம் இயற்ற வேண்டும். ஆனால், குறிப்பிட்ட காலத்திற்குள் அவசர சட்டத்திற்காக இயற்றப்பட்ட புதிய சட்டத்திற்கு அனுமதி கிடைக்காவிட்டால், அவசர சட்டம் ரத்து செய்யப்பட்டு, பழைய சட்டம் மீண்டும் நடைமுறைக்கு வரும்.
அதே சமயம், குறிப்பிட்ட சட்டத்தை ரத்து செய்வதற்கான சட்டத்தையும் நாடாளுமன்றத்தில் இயற்ற முடியும். இந்த ரத்து செய்யும் சட்டத்தை நாடாளுமன்றத்தின் இரு அவைகளிலும் நிறைவேற்றப்பட வேண்டும். அதன்பின், குடியரசுத் தலைவரின் ஒப்புதலைப் பெற வேண்டும். மூன்று வேளாண் சட்டங்களையும், ஒரே சட்டத்தின் மூலம் ரத்து செய்துவிடலாம். அச்சமயத்தில், புதிதாக இயற்றப்படும் சட்டத்தை ரத்து செய்தல் மற்றும் திருத்தம் என்ற தலைப்பில் மசோதாக்கள் அறிமுகப்படுத்தப்படுகின்றன.
நரேந்திர மோடி அரசாங்கம் 2014 இல் ஆட்சிக்கு வந்ததில் இருந்து, வழக்கற்றுப் போன 1,428 சட்டங்களை ரத்து செய்வதற்காக ஆறு ரத்து மற்றும் திருத்தச் சட்டங்களை நிறைவேற்றியுள்ளது குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது.
An A4 sheet with two lines printed on it made front-page headlines recently. It simply read: ‘Aashi Trading Company, GSTIN: 37AOTPG6030RIZ7’. The paper was pasted with brown duct tape on the wall of a 60-year-old building located in the densely populated locality of Satyanarayanapuram in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. It could be easily overlooked: it is not particularly eye-catching. But it is important, for this is the address of the Aashi Trading Company which was found to be the intended recipient of the nearly 3,000 kg of heroin seized at Mundra port in Gujarat in September, in one of the biggest drug hauls that India has ever seen.
All eyes on Vijayawada
It all began on September 15 when, thanks to a tip-off, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized the contraband estimated to be worth over Rs. 21,000 crore at Mundra Port in Kutch. The port is run by Adani Ports and SEZ (APSEZ), the ports business under the Gautam Adani-run conglomerate. The consignment was declared as ‘semi-processed talc stones’ from Afghanistan. On opening it, the officials found that it was, in fact, heroin. It had been exported in the garb of talcum powder from Hassan Hussain Limited in Kandahar and shipped from Bandar Abbas Port in Iran to Mundra Port. It was headed to Delhi, according to the police. Since investigations began, 10 people — six Afghan nationals, one Uzbek national and three Indian nationals — have been arrested. But what came as the biggest surprise during the investigation was that this consignment was being imported by a company in Vijayawada run by a Chennai-based couple. The residents of Satyanarayanapuram are dismayed to find their locality in the news for all the wrong reasons.
Amid the immediate political blame game that began after this discovery, as well as some media reports connecting the seizure to the city’s who’s who, Vijayawada Police Commissioner B. Srinivasulu sought to cushion Vijayawada from any adverse impact following the disclosure when he stated in a press release that the consignment was not meant for the city. “Heroin worth thousands of crores of rupees seized at Mundra port, Gujarat, was smuggled from Afghanistan. On verification by concerned investigating agencies, it is learnt that one Govindaraju Durga Purna Vaishali, resident of Chennai, has taken GST registration in August 2020 on the address at D. No. 23-14-16, Satyanarayanapuram, Gadiyaramvari Street, Vijayawada,” Srinivasulu said.
The Commissioner also said that Vaishali, wife of the Chennai-based Machavaram Sudhakar, had registered the trading company and obtained an Importer-ExporterCode from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) with the address last August. The couple has been staying in Chennai for many years. “No activity related to the import, except the use of the address, has come to our notice. The racket has no link to Andhra Pradesh and further probe is on,” Srinivasulu said.
The couple is being questioned by the DRI and other anti-drug trafficking agencies. Sudhakar and Vaishali were taken into custody by the DRI team from the Govardhan Giri apartments in Kolapakkam, 20 kilometres off Chennai, a few days after the seizure. After an extended remand, the couple were sent to Palara jail by a special Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) court. The authorities have cordoned off the house where the couple lived as tenants with their two young children.
A shocked neighbourhood
More than a month later, on October 19, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) obtained custody of the accused, along with one Rajkumar, for 10 days in connection with the heroin import case. Rajkumar is believed to have coordinated the drug transport and other related business deals abroad. According to the police, the NIA is investigating how Aashi Trading Company was used as a front for importing drugs and how the proceeds are being used to support terror activities in the country.
The NIA visited the Aashi Trading Company building in Vijayawada on October 9 and conducted an extensive search, according to neighbours living in the area. Vijayawada is a busy railway junction. News of the address being linked to a drug haul has left the residents shaken. Sagar (name changed), a government employee and a cousin of Vaishali, seemed to be in shock. Sagar lives in the same house that the officials barged into, as the property was inherited by both the families.
The building spread over about 200 yards is painted sandalwood yellow. It consists of two portions and the company is housed in one of them. The east-facing house on the narrow street is equipped with two air conditioning units and has one single room on the terrace which can be reached through a structured staircase.
“Who knew that Aashi Trading was a company trading drugs,” asked Sagar. “As far as I know, Sudhakar was involved in some solar panels-related business. I don’t know anything beyond that. I was in office when the DRI officials came to our place. My wife called me to say that some GST officials had come for some information. When I reached home, I realised that it was the DRI. They wanted to break open the other portion of my cousin’s place to carry out further investigations. They took the permission letter through WhatsApp from Vaishali’s brother who lives in Hyderabad. They searched the place and took some general information from us.”
The trail of the drug racket leading to the locality was equally astonishing for neighbours who have been sharing a common wall with this building for 40-50 years. Senior railway employee A. Sridhar, who lives on the southern side of the house, said it is the biggest and strangest news that he has heard in the past four decades. “This colony is known for traditional families and most of them work in the government and in private firms. We hadn’t even noticed the company name on the house till this news was published in the media. In fact, they are very simple people. Sudhakar is a native of Kakinada in East Godavari district. He is a very hard-working man and came up on his own. Vaishali is known to be a very devotional lady. We used to see her performing daily rituals. The couple shifted to Chennai after marriage. We were told that Sudhakar has taken an import and export licence and started some business, but I know nothing about the nature of the business. In my opinion, they are very nice people and someone might have trapped them into this trade,” he said.
What did Sudhakar do for a living?
The family members in the house seemed unaware of the story behind the company name board on the house and their immediate cousins’ connection to the drug trade. The haul and the lead to an address far away from the port seems to be emblematic of how global drug trade operates: low-profile importers are often used as big names or foreign nationals may raise suspicion. The investigating agencies are now probing every suspicious activity associated with the company, the people behind it, the location of the firm, the online and social media footprint of the couple, among other aspects.
The company, investigators found, was first registered in the house address of Taraka, Sudhakar’s mother-in-law. Sources said that the proprietary firm was registered a year ago with the address in Vijayawada, while the couple has been living in Chennai for the past eight years.
Though no conclusion can be drawn, a study of the company shows that there is mystery surrounding its intended business activity. While the company is said to have imported 3,000 kg of heroin in the guise of talcum powder, the official and unofficial business activity of Aashi is different according to online and offline records. The online Indian Yellow Pages state that the business activity of Aashi Trading Company involves fruits, vegetables, cereals, foodgrains and rice. But Sagar said that the accused used to import solar panels. “Through conversations we had with him, we learned that the couple used to import and sell solar panels. But we never saw any product coming into this house,” he said.
According to Sudhakar’s close relatives, he left his job a couple of years ago and was on his own and living in Chennai. “The last time I saw him was a month ago when the couple came from Chennai to attend a marriage in the family in Vijayawada, in the same house,” Sagar said.
Even close relatives do not seem to know much about what Sudhakar did before marriage. “Two years after marriage, he joined a Chennai-based steel sheet-making company. Before marriage, he was with a company in Vizag. Someone told me that he was also with a company in Kolkata,” said a close relative. The statements from relatives indicate that they were clueless about what Sudhakar did for a living.
Sudhakar has three Facebook accounts which show that he was working for a public company involved in logistics. In two of these accounts, his location reads Chennai and Kakinada.
There were also reports about a couple of businesses that Sudhakar ventured into, but all of them are unconfirmed. Reports, again unconfirmed, also state that the couple has a two-wheeler and a car.
Modus operandi
Authorities said that the entities involved are making use of technology and shell firms to remain undetected. Top officials of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) said that the company’s address in Vijayawada was perhaps intended to divert the attention of the authorities from another location for the transport and distribution of the contraband. Official sources said that in most cases, these gangs make sure that the carrier is unaware of the contents of the package while smuggling the banned material. In some cases, gullible people fall into the trap for financial benefit. With the demand for drugs escalating in high-profile circles, the gangs are getting more innovative and organised, they said.
The seizure of heroin at the Mundra Port is unquestionably significant, but there have been many instances of seizures of smaller quantities in the recent past. In a landmark seizure in May 2019, the DRI and the Indian Coast Guard together seized over 200 kg of heroin from fishing vessels along the Gujarat coast. In the last few years, the Gujarat Coast has become the preferred route for smuggling of drugs from Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iran.
Recently, the Gujarat Anti-Terrorist Squad arrested six persons and seized 144 kg of heroin worth Rs. 700 crore. The drug consignment was apparently sent from Pakistan and delivered mid sea off the Gujarat coast. In April this year, eight Pakistan nationals onboard a boat were apprehended with heroin worth about Rs. 150 crore off the Gujarat coast in the Arabian Sea. A mid-sea operation was commissioned with two high-speed boats and an aircraft of the Indian Coast Guard. Six Pakistani nationals were arrested in the operation. In 2019-20, the DRI seized 72 lots of narcotic drugs and psychotrophic substances covered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, across the country. Most of the drug consignments appear to originate in Pakistan, officials said.
This apart, courier and postal cargo have become the most frequent modes of transportation of drugs by traffickers as these ensure anonymity. In a recent case, officers of the DRI, Chennai, intercepted a consignment of Alprazolam tablets, a psychotropic substance, which was on its way to the U.S. in the guise of herbal and Ayurvedic medicines. About 90 kg of tablets numbering 1,37,665 were located. The DRI’s investigations led it to an international call centre in Jaipur which was run by one of the accused who took orders from customers in the U.S.
Given the gravity of the situation, there are regular training sessions for the police and other anti-drug trafficking agencies. The Hyderabad-based Centre for Human Security Studies which (CHSS) said there needs to be coordination and cooperation between several agencies to effectively tackle the menace. Founder and Executive Director of CHSS, K. Ramesh Babu, said India needs to invest heavily in container scanners and strategically deploy them in the 18 major ports and a few important minor ports of India through which the containers come in. “The Israeli and UAE security models are noteworthy here. We need to strengthen the hands of the Central Industrial Security Force and the paramilitary forces of the country with AI-enabled software and tech gadgets,” Ramesh said. The CHSS is planning to organise workshops in collaboration with the Andhra Pradesh Police on drug trafficking and narco-terrorism, body concealment of narcotic drugs and evacuation, etc. shortly.
Political blame game
The drug bust and the Vijayawada link has opened the proverbial Pandora’s Box. Political parties have been accusing each other of involvement in the trade. The government, the police and other law-enforcement agencies were quick to state that except for the fact that the office address of Aashi Trading Company is in Vijayawada, the city has nothing to do with the import and transit of the seized heroin.
Following allegations by the ruling YSR Congress and the Opposition Telugu Desam Party that the political class was involved in the trade, the Director General of Police Gautam Sawang has sought to clarify multiple times that there was no truth in these allegations. “The accused used a Vijayawada address. There is no drug trafficking in the State,” he said while also appealing to political leaders not to create panic with false information and campaigns.
The NIA, which is now investigating the case, said it plans to approach the authorities in Iran to determine the identities of those who helped the syndicate ship the consignment through the Bandar Abbas port.
Meanwhile, given the embarassment brought to it by the seizure, the Gujarat-based Adani Group, which operates ports across the country, announced that it will not handle Exim containerised cargo originating from Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan from November 15. “This trade advisory will apply to all terminals operated by APSEZ and including third party terminals at any APSEZ port till further notice,” a trade advisory issued to customers read.
With inputs from Mahesh Langa in Gujarat and Devesh K. Pandey in Delhi
The repeal of the three farm laws by the Union government, on Friday, marks a historic victory for the farmer’s movement in India. For more than a year, thousands of farmers had barricaded Delhi, and their protests were gradually evolving into a pan-Indian movement of resistance. The belated, though wise, decision by the Government to repeal the laws brings down the curtains on the agitation in Delhi but is unlikely to douse the political fervour it has left behind.
The Union government’s response to the protests were appalling and marked by hubris. Its focus was on controlling and positivising the narrative. Efforts were made to break, divide, buy out, demean, denigrate, demonise and shame the protesters, who were conveniently branded as terrorists and Khalistanis. Sedition cases were filed against the protesters. Teargas shells rained on the protest marches, and officials publicly asked the police to smash the heads of protesters. In Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh, a vehicle was driven into a peaceful demonstration, killing several persons. That the protests endured and survived such brutal responses is indeed salutary.
The broader context
“Reforms” in agriculture, advocated by right-wing economists after 1991, were focused on dismantling the institutional support structures in Indian agriculture that were established after the 1960s. These support structures — in prices, subsidies, credit, marketing, research and extension — were instrumental in India’s achievement of food self-sufficiency between the 1960s and the 1980s.
In agricultural marketing, the focus of attack was themandisgoverned by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) Acts passed by State Assemblies. It was argued that if India needs to diversify its cropping pattern into export-oriented and high-value crops,mandisneed to give way to private markets, futures markets and contract farming. The APMC Acts discriminated against farmers by not allowing them to interact directly with the big corporate buyers and exporters. So, the APMC Acts must be amended so that any private market or rural collection centre can freely emerge anywhere without approval of the localmandior the payment of amanditax, and so that contract farming can be popularised. Similarly, the advocacy for the amendment to the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 rested on the view that private corporate investment can be incentivised into storage and warehousing if stock limits are relaxed for traders.
It was a long-held constitutional consensus in India that agricultural marketing was the legislative arena of State governments. Thus, in 2003, the Union government prepared a Model Act on agricultural marketing and sent it to States for passage in State Assemblies. This was followed by the preparation and circulation of two other Model Acts, in 2017 and 2018. Reception to these Model Acts was neither dismissive nor welcoming. Many States selected a few clauses, which they found attractive and suitable to their contexts, and accordingly amended their APMC Acts between 2003 and 2020. Only one State — Bihar — used the occasion to completely annul its APMC Act in 2006.
Laws were unconstitutional
The consensus was broken in 2020, when the Union government took up on itself the task of legislating on agricultural marketing and passed the farm laws. Federal principles were violated as the Union government invoked Entry 33 of the Concurrent List to intervene into matters in Entry 14, Entry 26 and Entry 27 of the State List. The farm laws even interfered with Entry 28 of the State List, which were not subject to Entry 33 of the Concurrent List. Thus, to begin with, the farm laws were reasonably and justifiably argued to be unconstitutional.
However, the Supreme Court of India refused to act swiftly on petitions filed before it. Instead, without consulting the protesting farmer’s organisations, it appointed, in January 2021, a committee of four persons, all of whom had publicly declared their support for the farm laws. Farmer’s organisations, on their part, distanced themselves from the committee and continued with their agitation.
Apart from constitutionality, the contents of farm laws were also widely criticised. Bihar’s example showed that private investment was unlikely to flow into agricultural markets even if APMC Acts were annulled. In fact, the exploitation of farmers by unscrupulous traders intensified in Bihar after 2006. Kerala never had an APMC Act.
Yet, there was little presence of private investment in its agricultural markets. Maharashtra delisted fruits and vegetables from the ambit of APMCs in 2016. Still, the inflow of private investment into agricultural markets was only marginal. Thus, what was likely was that a formal and regulated market might fragment itself into an informal and unregulated market if the APMC Acts were weakened. Furthermore, two other problems were highlighted. One,manditaxes were used to invest in rural infrastructure in States such as Punjab. Ifmandisare weakened, what would substitute for such investments? Two, even if private markets emerged, how would they address the structural problem of poor farm-gate aggregation of the produce of small and marginal farmers? Would one middleman be simply substituted by another? Proponents of farm laws had no convincing answers.
The grievance redress mechanisms for contract farming also came up for criticism. The obliteration of the power of civil courts and their substitution with a weak mechanism led by the sub-divisional magistrate threatened to be a serious impediment to a just redress of complaints. It was feared that this may benefit corporate sponsors more than the contracting farmers.
It pointed towards corporates
Finally, the overall thrust of the farm laws appeared to encourage the participation of larger corporate players in agricultural markets rather than farmer-friendly organisations, such as cooperatives or Farmer Producer Companies (FPC). Especially in the case of the amendment of the Essential Commodities Act, there was reasonable suspicion that a handful of corporate players were to substantially benefit from investments in logistics, storage and warehousing.
The farmers’ protests began from States such as Punjab and Haryana where themandiswere deeply rooted institutions in the local economy and society. However, as days passed, the agitation spread to western Uttar Pradesh and from there to many other States. In a few months, the agitation threatened to grow into a pan-Indian phenomenon with a constant addition of local agrarian demands into the larger demand for the repeal of farm laws. Such local customisation of the agitation immensely helped in the cause of mobilisation. An unusually large number of women actively participated in the protests. In regions such as western U.P., the protests also threatened to bridge and repair the communal fault lines that were consciously cultivated after the Muzaffarnagar riots of 2013. Numerous protesters perished on the protest grounds, but support for the protests grew not just domestically, but also globally.
A mindset of intolerance
It was not just hubris that marked the Government’s response, but also infantilism. When pop star and celebrity Rihanna tweeted a rather innocent comment about the protests, the entire machinery of the ministry of external affairs was awoken for an extraordinarily disproportionate response. Indian embassies were asked to spread the word that she and other celebrities were propagandists who had irresponsibly ganged up to discredit progress in India. These responses showed nothing but a deeply disturbing official mindset of intolerance and insecurity.
The repeal of the farm laws has, at least temporarily, put an end to an ugly and eminently avoidable chapter of confrontation between the Union government and the farmers. However, the momentum that the agitation has left behind would surely linger on. The agitation has led to a positive politicisation of several agrarian demands, including the need for stable markets and remunerative prices. A confidence has grown that committed struggles matter and even aggressive governments can be made to kneel. New rural mobilisations around demands to address the larger and persistent agrarian crisis are likely to emerge and grow. We surely are in for interesting times.
R. Ramakumar is Professor at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai
The arrest, on October 31, 2021, of the former Chairman, State Bank of India (SBI), Pratip Chaudhuri — in a case that was related to a hotel project in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan that was financed by the bank — became the centre of attention, but reactions were mixed. There are some who consider the arrest of any banker as well-deserved without bothering to ask the reason. Such callous reactions are often spawned by ‘Wiki-pandits’. One such person wrote: “… was arrested... for selling property as (sic) throwaway price to one company and he joined same company after retirement.”
The background
The group which ran the luxury hotel, GarhRajwada, in Jaisalmer, availed a loan of Rs. 24 crore and cash credit of Rs. 1 crore from the SBI in 2007. With repayments not forthcoming and the global financial crisis raging, the bank restructured the account in 2009. It became a non-performing asset in June 2010. The bank recalled the loan. On non-payment, it approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in 2013 for Rs. 39.69 crore. It also proceeded under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act. To secure its financial interest, the bank assigned the loan to the Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company (AARC) for Rs. 25 crore.
AARC pursued the matter in the DRT and under the SARFAESI Act. It also approached the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). It had to move the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and the Supreme Court of India before the NCLT admitted the matter in March 2017. The dilatory tactics of the promoters, including not handing over company vehicles to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), delayed the process. These invited strictures from the NCLAT and the Court. The promoters also filed a first information report against the IRP resulting in his arrest. The Court quashed these proceedings.
In December 2017, despite the attempts by the promoters to delay things on frivolous grounds, the NCLT permitted the sale of the hotel to JFC Finance. The lenders were paid in full while the promoters received just Rs. 1 per share, or Rs. 17.4 lakh. The case was the first such sale after the IBC barred promoters from bidding for their own assets.
Recovery yield
The bank recovered Rs. 25 crore out of dues of Rs. 40 crore. Recovering over 60% is excellent when globally, such sales yield only around 30% or less. In India, recoveries average only 23.2% across various channels. It is highest through the IBC at 45.5% of the amount involved. Recoveries through the SARFAESI route come to 26.7%. Lok Adalats and DRTs come next with 6.2% and 4.1%, respectively.
As the sale of the underlying security was done by the ARC, the consideration received by the bank when assigning its dues and its appropriateness as compared to the security value is irrelevant. This sale is unrelated to the value of the underlying security. Thus, a transparent process was followed for the sale of the receivables by the bank to the arc, and by the arc to the final buyer.
So there was no case for malfeasance against any banker including Mr. Chaudhuri. He laid down office as Chairman of the SBI in September 2013, about six months before the bank sold the asset to ARC in March 2014. He joined the board of ARC six months later in October 2014. In any case, such individual cases do not come to the chairman of a bank of the SBI’s standing
Thelogic behind accepting smaller amounts in settlement is based on a banker’s judgment that recovering Rs. 25 crore today is better than recovering an uncertain amount in the distant future, given the time value of money and delays in our judicial processes. The second reason is that banks are in the business of banking, and recovery is not their forte. Investing people and money in messy recovery processes — through specialised branches or otherwise — distracts a bank from its core business.
Mr. Chaudhuri’s arrest took place in a related case where the same borrower alleged fraud in an apparent act of retribution. The case was initially dismissed for want of criminality. The matter was later revived and a non-bailable warrant issued. The arrest of Mr. Chaudhuri and not that of the other directors indicate that he was either not briefed or defended properly; or he was the victim of overconfidence.
A destabilisation
The episode betrays a lack of understanding of the recovery process and its underlying principles. These could have been clarified during discussions. That there were none indicates an attempt to put the system under duress through blackmail to get the desired result.
The balance of power between the lender and borrower has moved like a pendulum. At periodic intervals, the Government and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) have moved to strengthen the hands of the lendervis-à-visthe borrower, and vice-versa. But, an unstable equilibrium was often restored with the system, bankers and other gatekeepers included, conspiring to put the system back in favour of the borrower.
In 1962, after the Palai Central Bank failed, an amended RBI Act provided for ade factocredit information bureau, which would have been among the first in the world. What would have strengthened information sharing among bankers soon became dysfunctional. A decade later, in 1971, a study group recommended setting up a Credit Information Trust. The entire system was discontinued in 1995.
The Credit Authorisation Scheme, inventory norms, and other regulations were started from the late 1960s onwards with similar pious intentions. But, an industry of professionals sprung up to train and advise borrowers on how to cook up figures to get the level of credit they wanted. The Debt Recovery Tribunal was introduced in 1993 following the Narasimham Committee recommendations of 1991. About a decade later, the SARFAESI Act was passed. These were intended to speed up recovery and strengthen the hands of bankers. But, the system, over the years, became compromised in different ways. This included the non-appointment of judges, failed auctions, delayed payments, and so on. The IBP is the most effective system to date to secure the interests of the lender. Mr. Chaudhuri’s arrest is an early symptom of attempts to hijack the system. An alert Government and regulator should move fast to close the gaps. Those who wield high-level fiduciary responsibilities should also be circumspect deciding who they associate with later. Very often they are not after the persons or their worth, but their last designation.
G. Sreekumar is a former central banker
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has done the right thing by announcing the repeal of the three farm laws that are at the centre of a protracted confrontation between his government and a section of farmers for a year. The laws sought to reorganise India’s agriculture sector more in accordance with the principles of market economy. They would have redesigned the country’s food procurement and distribution mechanisms, triggering fears that the producers and consumers would be adversely affected, to the benefit of big companies. Such fears were aggravated by the undemocratic manner in which these laws were brought about, through ordinances, and passed in Parliament without deliberations, or consultations with the States. The decision to repeal them is a triumph of democracy. On the one hand, the tenacity of the agitating farmers that the BJP and state agencies could not break while on the other, the looming Assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, forced the ruling party’s hand. In bowing to public demand, Mr. Modi has shown flexibility and pragmatism. Farmers should not only withdraw the protest now but also show a more flexible approach regarding the path ahead to reform the sector.
Flexibility is not a bad trait in democracy, which is about constant negotiations, but it should not be merely political expediency. In this instance, the agitators were socially dominant, and economically and politically powerful groups whose hostility the BJP found difficult to handle. This should be an occasion for the Government to revisit its general attitude towards protest mobilisation. The reflex of the current dispensation has been to paint opponents and critics as traitors or anti-nationals — a tactic that was tried even in the case of the farmers. A consultative decision making would always be more sustainable and easier to enforce. Further moves on agriculture sector reforms must draw from the experience of the making, and now the repeal, of the three farm laws. Their repeal does not invalidate the urgent case for reforms in the agriculture sector, in which incentive mechanisms are skewed, and environmental costs are unsustainable. Those will have to be pursued in a manner suitable to a federal democratic polity as India’s. The repeal of these laws will likely spur a realignment of politics in U.P. and Punjab, where Assembly elections are round the corner. The RLD, which is influential among the Jat farmers in western U.P., might now see the BJP in a different light. The Congress has been supporting the protesting farmers, and can claim victory. But by repealing the laws the BJP has increased its political space in both States, more so in Punjab where the Congress is in power. The BJP’s estranged ally, the Akali Dal, and Amarinder Singh, former Congress CM who was humiliated by the party, will also look for new opportunities in the situation.
The Supreme Court has done well to correct an egregious error of interpretation committed by a judge in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in holding that sexual assault on a child victim would require “skin-to-skin” contact. It has set aside two judgments that acquitted two offenders against children from the graver charge of sexual assault, even while sentencing them to short prison terms for lesser offences. The High Court had construed Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, pertaining to sexual assault on children, in such a way that it concluded that the acts for which the accused were charged did not amount to sexual assault. The Attorney General of India took the initiative to challenge these two verdicts. The NCW also questioned the Court’s understanding of a POCSO provision, arguing that the law does not brook the sort of dilution that led to the Court ignoring the basic fact that the entire Act is aimed at penalising actions rooted in sexual intent. The Supreme Court showed alacrity and sensitivity in staying the portions of the judgment related to the diluted interpretation earlier this year. In one case, the act of groping a 12-year-old girl’s breast over her dress and, in another, the acts preparatory to an assault on a five-year-old were proved in the trial. Even after accepting these facts, the absence of physical contact with the girl’s body part was used to absolve the accused of the charge of sexual assault. In the second case, the Court took a lenient view that the act of “holding the hands of the prosecutrix” and “opening the zip of the pant” did not fit into the definition of sexual assault.
It was quite apparent that the High Court’s understanding was flawed and out of sync with the legislative intent behind the enactment of a stringent law to protect children based on principles found in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Writing for the Bench, Justice Bela M. Trivedi has said that restricting the interpretation of the words ‘touch’ or ‘physical contact’ to ‘skin to skin contact’ would be a narrow and pedantic interpretation of Section 7, and if such a narrow interpretation is accepted it would frustrate the very object of the Act. The judgment sets right not only a misinterpretation of the statute but also underscores that the core ingredient of a sexual offence is the “sexual intent” behind it. While restoring the trial court’s conviction for ‘sexual assault’ in one case, and ‘aggravated sexual assault’ in the other, the apex court has rejected attempts to interpret a law in favour of the accused when there was no real ambiguity in it. And in any case, as Justice S. Ravindra Bhat has pointed out in his concurring opinion, an interpretation should not be destructive of the law’s intention.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to repeal the three farm laws is immensely welcome, his announcement on Gurpurab is fitting. More than the farmers’ victory or government’s defeat, it sends out a message that the government is listening, or rather, that the PM has been compelled to do so by the people.
Because the farmers are the people, despite all efforts by senior ministers, the ruling establishment’s army of trolls and spinmeisters to paint them as the “Other” — as puppets of the propagandist Left or as Khalistanis, as anti-national and pampered tractor-borne elites stalling reforms, peddlers of anarchy, or as the PM himself called them, “aandolanjeevi”. Today, the Modi government has done well to acknowledge that laws are not as good as their enforcement by state machinery, but only as good as their capacity to win people’s trust — a well-timed upending of the thesis proposed only days ago by National Security Adviser Ajit Doval. The Centre’s farm laws were a much-needed attempt to address the stasis in agriculture by ensuring that farmers get the right price for produce, and have the freedom to sell where they want to. But, as this newspaper repeatedly underlined, the crisis began with the way in which the reforms were pushed through. The government brought them in through ordinance, amid a pandemic, and then turned away from the popular clamour that rose on the back of farmers’ insecurities about their perceived pro-corporate tilt, when it was not unleashing police on the protesters. The inconclusive 11 rounds of talks with farm union leaders were initiated too late. By that time, the farmers’ movement had dug its feet well into the ground in farms and households across Punjab and Haryana. The court’s intervention also misread the agitation — to a political problem, the solution had to come from politics.
The government’s retreat may have been a response to the approach of another round of state elections. These include Punjab, where the BJP is in a lonely corner, and UP, where the mowing down of four farmers at Lakhimpur Kheri had created possibilities of a spillover of the farm issue into the electoral campaign. Or it could be that the government had to heed a larger message that the mostly peaceful farmers’ mobilisation had brought to Delhi’s door — even a party that thrives on polarisation cannot afford to range “us” against “them, the farmers”. The farmer is much too evocative and resonant a symbol. Even in an industrialising economy and urbanising country, it belongs to the very centre of the national imagination. The message is also this: No government at the Centre, even one that revels in a majoritarian politics, can let a minority like the Sikhs, the majority in a border state where victory against a separatist movement has brought a hardwon peace, feel disrespected.
In the end, it is not important why the government retreated. It is important that it knows that in a democracy, winning a majority is not enough. It is only the beginning of the work of governance, which calls for persuasion. Pushing economic reforms, especially those that upend long-held assumptions, needs hard work and humility. Neither self-serving lectures nor flaunting Lok Sabha numbers will do. With the PM promising that laws which began as an ordinance will be laid to rest in Parliament, it’s a good day for democracy.
One person was killed at the Dhing railway station in Assam’s Nowgong district when the CRPF fired four rounds to disperse a stone throwing mob. The firing was preceded by a lathi charge. The authorities claimed that the situation was under control. A powerful explosive device was recovered from the railway track at Kamakhya near Gauhati and was defused by the army. But for these incidents and some minor incidents of violence, the 36-hour Assam Bandh called by the AASU and AAGSP passed off peacefully. The Bandh was peaceful in the Valley, except for the border district of Goalpara, where several shops were open and cinema halls functioned. Over 500 persons were taken into custody in the state. North Lakhimpur had the highest tally of arrests.
Punjab Action Plan
The Centre has decided to take drastic measures to deal with the extremist activities and deteriorating law and order situation in Punjab. A high-level team headed by Union Home Secretary T N Chaturvedi is being sent to Punjab to prepare a plan of action after an on the spot study of the situation. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi discussed the Punjab situation with the Cabinet Secretary T Krishnaswamy Rao Sahib, T N Chaturvedi and her principal secretary T C Alexander. The Home Secretary has been asked to stay in Punjab for three to four days to assess the situation.
Rajan Murder Case
Three convicted police officers, Jayaram Padickal, Muralikrishna Das, and Kunhiraman Nambiar, were acquitted by the Madras High Court in the Rajan murder case. The appeal by the Kerala government against the acquittal of Madhusudanan and Lakshmanan, both SPs, and also Mohan, police inspector, and Pulikodan Narayanan, sub inspector was set aside. The two judge bench felt that those already acquitted should not be disturbed.
Not long after he had allegedly sexted an employee of Cricket Tasmania with unsolicited graphic images, and immediately after he had been elevated to captainship after the ball-tampering scandal, Tim Paine had assured Australians, “We know what’s wrong. We know what’s right. We know what Australian cricket expects of us. And we will be holding each other accountable.” It turns out Cricket Australia certainly didn’t. Consider this: Steve Smith, David Warner and the Australian cricketing ethos, all were brutally damaged by the tampering scandal. Players had literally cried, as Paine would do now, as they headed into year-long bans to pacify the Australian public’s outcry. A report titled ‘Elite honesty’ was introduced by CA to specify the culture they wanted. And yet, they foisted Paine as the skipper. The duplicity is stark.
CA has issued a statement saying that they don’t condone such behaviour. But if it was un-condonable behaviour, why did they condone it and make him the captain after an enquiry in ’18? How did he escape penalties for breaching the code then? Even in a normal context, this would have been jarring but in the backdrop of the tampering saga, it was worse. The optimists in Australian media are trying to see this as a watershed moment and hoping it could set right workplace practices.
However, the optimism seems self-deception. There was no need to make Paine the captain. He wasn’t a player of stature. He wasn’t even a regular playing member; and had contemplated quitting the game not long ago. But in CA’s mind, he had the face that could have filled the advertisement of a happy family man. “Elite honesty”, apparently, the Cricket Australia way.
A collateral casualty of the farm laws row was that they took away the focus from other reforms. These, among other things, related to bringing urea under the nutrient-based subsidy regime, phasing out resource use-inefficient subsidies and replacing them with per-acre cash transfers, and moving away from crop-specific minimum “price” to “income” support schemes on the lines of PM-Kisan. Expending too much political capital on the farm laws made headway on these reforms difficult. On the contrary, the Narendra Modi government, in order to placate those agitating against or suspicious of its farm laws, ended up procuring almost 14.5 per cent more paddy and wheat in 2020-21, compared to the previous year that had also seen record minimum support price (MSP)-based purchases. The farm laws, far from making the stage conducive for more reforms, aroused a problematic demand from the streets: Enact a parallel legislation to make MSP a legal right, similar to the National Food Security Act.
That demand, hopefully, will recede to background, now that the government has decided to repeal the three laws. While the merits of the laws — giving farmers the choice to sell and traders/processors/retailers to buy from outside regulated APMC mandis, allowing both sides to enter into direct supply contracts and doing away with stockholding restrictions on agri-businesses — cannot be doubted, the political fallout and the environment of distrust that grew with the agitation became too serious to ignore. Economic reforms in India have been a story of stealth, and two steps forward one step back, while largely staying the course. The worst case scenario with the farm laws would have been their becoming the main issue in the upcoming state elections and the Centre repealing them along with accepting the demand for providing legal guarantee to MSP. That would have been not one, but three steps backwards.
Now, the best, and possibly the constitutionally right thing to do is to leave agriculture marketing legislation to the states. The Modi government can ask BJP-ruled states to reform their APMC laws to deregulate farm produce trading and enable contract cultivation. Once they do it, others are bound to follow sooner than later. The Centre can separately reintroduce the law on abolishing stockholding limits, to which farmers have no serious objections.
Acts of naming and renaming have become important to political calculations, with cities, localities and landmarks being renamed in recent times. Allahabad has been changed to Prayagraj and Faizabad gave way to Ayodhya. This trend is not limited to a single state. Recently, on a visit to Bhopal, the Prime Minister inaugurated the refurbished Habibganj Railway Station and “dedicated it to the nation”. It was also renamed as Rani Kamlapati Station, after a Gond queen who reigned in the area in the 18th century. While floating this new name, the BJP leadership has been quick to proclaim her as “the last Hindu ruler of Bhopal”.
This is not an isolated attempt to rewrite Bhopal’s history along communal lines, and efface the role and legacy of its Muslim rulers. Local leaders, including MLAs and municipal corporators, have made repeated attempts to rename Bhopal as Bhojpal, after Bhoj, a Parmar king who ruled over the Malwa region in the 11th century, whom they regard as the original founder of the city. In these narratives, the exploits of figures such as Bhoj and Kamlapati are privileged, while the developments that took place under Dost Muhammad Khan, who founded the state of Bhopal in the 18th century, and his successors are pushed aside.
Supporters of the Hindu right even go to the extent of claiming that the original city of Bhoj lies buried beneath the bustling marketplaces and mosques of present-day Bhopal. Through such attempts, history is purposely fragmented along communal lines.
The state of Bhopal was founded in 1722 by Dost Muhammad Khan, an Afghan adventurer who had served for a time in the Mughal army, before trying his fortunes in central India. His successors continued to rule over the state throughout the period of colonial domination as dependents of the British. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the state was led by four remarkable Begums — Qudsia, Sikandar Jahan, Shah Jahan and Sultan Jahan. The line of Bhopal’s Begums ended with Sultan Jahan in 1926. Significantly, younger generations of Bhopal’s residents today seem, by and large, oblivious to this history. In 1947, the state of Bhopal acceded to the Indian Union. In 1949, it was formed into a chief commissioner’s province, and in 1956 it became the capital of the newly-reorganised state of Madhya Pradesh.
If we compare Bhopal to other major cities of Madhya Pradesh, namely Indore and Gwalior, which too were headquarters of princely states, a striking contrast emerges. In Indore, many prominent establishments and institutions bear the names of its former Holkar rulers. Likewise, in Gwalior, most localities and government buildings carry names of the scions of the Scindia clan. But in Bhopal, very few places bear names of the former royals.
The large-scale planning exercise, initiated, in the wake of the city’s declaration as the state capital, accounted for this difference. Bhopal’s bureaucrat planners deliberately disregarded its princely past. Neighbourhoods were identified by numbers — 45 Bungalows, 1100 Quarters and 1250 Quarters — rather than being named after people. Bus stops too got designated by numerals. But, even in this seemingly detached naming scheme, several Hindu icons found a place.
What started as a practice of disregarding Bhopal’s princely past gradually acquired far more sinister connotations. Over time, it came to be inflected by intentional subversion, misrepresentation and distortion. The initial consideration to suppress this shared past has come now to be supplemented by vigorous attempts to recast it, framing it in oppositional terms as either Muslim or Hindu. Of late, this project has been invested with considerable energy. And in this process, strategies of naming and renaming have been put to good use. The intent is evident — to overwrite residents’ collective cultural memory, dislocate experiences of mutual solidarities and, thereby, craft a sharply polarised present that can secure rich political returns.
The Modi government’s decision to repeal the controversial farm laws is a landmark moment. But quite what it signifies is very much an open question. The decision to repeal is the correct one even if it comes months late. Agriculture needs serious reform, but this legislation was not the reform it urgently needed. The deep distrust this legislation created would have, in the long run, made it harder to move Indian agriculture to a new sustainable and productive equilibrium. The repeal at least allows for the possibility of revisiting the real challenges agriculture faces, based on first principles and creating a new consensus. The rebuilding of trust is going to be a necessary condition for reforms that really matter. But, at the same time, there is also the risk that, chastened by this experience, no government will seriously think of agricultural reform. A version of the current status quo will endure for the foreseeable future, and that prospect is not a very comforting one either. Both the farmers’ movement and the government will have to show new creativity to move beyond the current impasse.
At first glance, this repeal reflects a simple story. It is a triumph of the staying power, solidarity and indomitable will of the farmers’ movement. It shows that old-fashioned organisation and mobilisation is the only way to crack the façade of total control that the government likes to project. The movement has forced the government to, uncharacteristically, eat humble pie. It has, for the moment, dented the self-image the government sought to project of being able to undertake what it thinks are reforms even in the face of concerted opposition. In some senses, the climbdown will be seen by the Prime Minister’s supporters as a betrayal of his own tough image. The government was clearly getting nervous about the implications of the farmers’ discontent and possibly feared electoral reversals.
There is a great deal of truth in this narrative. But one of the interesting things about this moment is that the concession has come at a time when the movement itself was dissipating. The farmers’ movement did not have overwhelming resonance outside Punjab and Western UP. The visible modalities of protest had, through various means, been cleared out, even though BJP politicians at the local level were facing resistance. In short, the government had the staying power to stare down and repress the protest. To a great extent it did, and could have continued to do so. The timing of the announcement is not driven by the momentum or power of the movement, which is why it is a bit of a surprise. But what the government seems to have recognised is that suppressing or managing a protest can, paradoxically, create a deeper simmering discontent that might be harder to manage.
It is tempting to explain the decision in a purely instrumental logic: The timing of the UP elections. And, of course, the government has again demonstrated its ability to surprise and constantly think politically. But the logic of the decision appears to be more complicated. The government may fear that discontent in Western UP might have reinforced the idea that farmers there need their own political representation through parties like the RLD and not rely on the BJP. Coming on the heels of rising input costs and fuel inflation, there is a potential for discontent. But this dynamic has been around for a while and would have been factored into the government’s calculations.
>In purely political terms, the government is also taking a risk by repealing the laws. It shatters its own professed self-image. But this may not be of much consequence since the kind of voter who votes for the BJP for its supposed toughness will have nowhere to go, even if they feel betrayed. The second risk is that it emboldens civil society and social movements. This government has pretty much had a free run in containing or suppressing social movements. But its calculation will be that there is something so particular and unique about the nature of this protest that it will not be easy to replicate on other issues. If this is a triumph of sorts for social movements, it will be a one-off one. More worryingly, it is worth speculating on what the government might do next to burnish its image of toughness, now that it has lost face.
The Prime Minister, of course, framed the issue, as he always does, as driven by his own “pure” motives. Both the enactment of laws and the withdrawal, in his eyes, are expressions of the purity of his purpose. But the Prime Minister did not say that the laws were a mistake. He harped on the theme that the government simply failed to convince a tiny minority. But he did not quite explain why building consensus had become important after the fact. In a curious way, he also engaged in a political incitement of sorts — encouraging a kind of division amongst farmers, where those who opposed the bill are held to account. By removing the farm bills, he hopes the material and social contradictions within the farmers will again resurface.
But there is something about the framing of this decision that makes it more than just a question of immediate instrumental logic. And that something can be summarised in one word: Punjab. Punjab is crucial to this story. Electoral reverses and social movements can be managed. But the deep mistrust and alienation that was settling in Punjab, where for literally every citizen (even those more sympathetic to reforms), this had become an issue of identity, esteem and self-respect, posed a challenge of a different order. The government in no small measure contributed to it, by trying to delegitimise the movement. It itself contributed to creating a security dilemma. And now that it is faced with multiple security dilemmas on every front, from Kashmir to the Northeast, it had to engage in an act of retrieval. Everything about the Prime Minister’s framing, and the invocation of Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh, suggests that it recognised the need for the larger political retrieval of Punjab so it does not get marginalised from the national project. The government is clearly nervous. But the source of that nervousness is not just simple electoral logic.
The façade of the government’s omnipotence has cracked. That is a good thing for a democracy. But whether that leads to a new and constructive dialogue, and better reforms, or a sharpening of contradictions remains to be seen.
At the COP26, which concluded in Glasgow last week, India rightly emphasised that rich countries should help poor countries to develop their renewable energy capacities. But the West is likely to be too selfish in paying all its dues and poor countries may well have to help themselves to make the transition that society urgently needs. One source of funding could well be the well-off citizens of India, who are getting richer and richer. A 2018 Oxfam report revealed that 10 per cent of the richest Indians garnered 77.4 per cent of the nation’s wealth (compared to 73 per cent the year before). In fact, according to the report, 58 per cent of India’s wealth was in the hands of one per cent of the country’s population (about one per cent of the world’s population controls 50 per cent of the world’s wealth). The combined income of this handful of people in 2017 was almost as much as India’s budget that year. In 2017, the fortune of India’s 100 richest tycoons leaped by 26 per cent.
The IIFL Wealth Hurun India Rich List of 2019 identified the 953 richest families in India. It revealed that their fortune represented more than 26 per cent of the country’s GDP — which meant that a tax rate of four per cent on the nation’s 953 richest families would give the government the equivalent of one per cent of India’s GDP. According to Crédit Suisse, the number of dollar millionaires in India has jumped from 34,000 in 2000 to 7,59,000 in 2019 — in other words, the country has one of “the world’s fastest-growing population of millionaires”. The average wealth of these millionaires has increased by 74 per cent over this period.
Surprisingly, the taxation policy of the government, instead of making the exchequer benefit from this trend, has actively strengthened it. One of the first decisions of the Narendra Modi government was to replace the wealth tax by an income tax increase of two per cent for households that earned more than 10 million rupees annually. Then, the corporate tax was lowered, for existing companies from 30 per cent to 22 per cent, and for manufacturing firms incorporated after October 1, 2019 that started operations before March 31, 2023, from 25 to 15 per cent — the biggest reduction in 28 years.
The Union budget has been geared towards pleasing the middle class. In the 2019-20 budget, the income tax exemption limit jumped from Rs 2,00,000 to 2,50,000 and the tax rate for incomes up to Rs 5 lakh was reduced from 10 to 5 per cent. The tax on an income of Rs 10 lakh dropped from Rs 1,10,210 to Rs 75,000.
This taxation policy deprived the state of important resources. To (partly) compensate for the decline of direct taxes, the government has increased indirect taxes, unfairly so, because they affect all Indians irrespective of their income. The share of indirect taxes in the state’s fiscal resources has increased under the Modi government to reach 50 per cent of total taxes in 2018, compared to 39 per cent under UPA I and 44 per cent under UPA II. Taxes on petroleum products are a case in point. Much has already been said on how taxes on fuel sales have a large share in the government’s revenues. About two-thirds of the cost of a litre of petrol now goes towards taxes. The tax collected on petrol and diesel has increased by 459 per cent in the past seven years — from Rs 52,537 crore in 2013 to Rs 2.13 lakh crore in 2019-2020. Given that petrol is a less elastic good, people are bound to consume it even at higher prices. This also explains why the government sees fuel sale in India as a safe “revenue collection” medium. The period between 2015-16 and 2020-21 saw a significant two-digit year-on-year percentage growth in contribution to the central exchequer by taxes and duties with no negative growth (barring the ongoing financial year). In 2018-19, excise duty on petroleum products alone accounted for roughly 24 per cent of the indirect tax revenue.
Why is the Opposition not exploiting this issue to its advantage? First, state governments receive their share of the fuel tax directly and this has deterred many state governments where the opposition holds office from protesting the rise in fuel prices. However, the larger share of the petrol taxation has belonged to the Centre in recent years. Excise revenue (total contribution to the exchequer, that is, taxes plus dividend to government) from crude oil and petroleum products rose 94 per cent for the Centre while only 37 per cent for the states between 2014-15 and 2019-2020. Second, the composition of fuel prices, sale and revenue use is a complex subject. And amongst the most tested tool in a populist’s toolbox is to dumb things down without context while giving it a spin.
The Modi government’s taxation policy will probably continue to prevail, even though the price of petrol has been marginally reduced recently to defuse tensions. The government will continue to display a pro-rich (and an anti-poor) bias, depriving the exchequer of some of the resources it needs for dealing with issues as important as climate change. Such fundamental questions will probably be discussed by think tanks and chambers of commerce and industries in the near future.
In a surprise move, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that the government will repeal the farm laws in the Winter Session of Parliament. He said that although these laws were passed with the best intentions for the betterment of farmers, his government could not convince the agitating agriculturists about their positive potential. PM Modi said that the government will constitute a committee comprising representatives of the Union and state governments, agri-experts and scientists to come up with a new package for farmers. He chose the occasion of Gurpurab to make his announcement. Is this a tactical retreat or surrender? What are the likely implications of the decision, economically and politically?
As far as agriculture is concerned, it will keep chugging along the path it has been on for about a decade or so. The agri-GDP growth has been 3.5 per cent per annum in the first seven years of the Modi government — the same as in the first seven years of the Manmohan Singh government. One expects this trend to continue — there might be minor changes in the agri-GDP depending on rainfall patterns. Cropping patterns will remain skewed in favour of rice and wheat, with the granaries of the Food Corporation of India bulging with stocks of grain. The food subsidy will keep bloating and there will be large leakages. The groundwater table in the north-western states will keep receding and methane and nitrous oxide will keep polluting the environment. Agri-markets will continue to be rigged and farm reforms will remain elusive for some time to come unless the promised committee comes up with more meaningful solutions.
But what will happen to farmers’ incomes? And will the Modi government accept the farmers’ demand for giving legal status to MSP? The latest Situation Assessment Survey of the NSO reveals that the income of an average agri-household in India was only Rs 10,218 per month in 2018-19. Translated to today’s prices, and applying roughly 3.5 per cent per annum growth in real incomes, the income of an average agri-household would be around Rs 13,000 today. Add another Rs 500 per month under the PM-KISAN scheme, and this is roughly the level of the monthly family income in rural areas for the largest segment of our workforce (roughly 45 per cent) — one that is engaged in agriculture. This is not a very happy situation and all out measures need to be taken to increase rural incomes in a sustained manner. The question is how? Should that be through higher MSPs or diversification towards high-value agriculture?
Given that the average holding size stands at just 0.9 ha (2018-19), and has been shrinking over the years, the income a farmer can earn from producing basic staples is not hard to guess. Unless one goes for high-value agriculture — and, that’s where one needs efficient functioning value chains from farm to fork by the infusion of private investments in logistics, storage, processing, e-commerce, and digital technologies — the incomes of farmers cannot be increased significantly. There is no doubt that this sector is crying for reforms, both in the marketing of outputs as well as inputs, including land lease markets and direct benefit transfer of all input subsidies — fertilisers, power, credit and farm machinery.
However, the most interesting implication of the PM’s announcement is going to be political. There is talk that behind this tactical “retreat” there is a political gamble. There is a strong possibility of the BJP joining hands with former chief minister Amarinder Singh — he has openly talked about this in the media — and work with him to win back power in Punjab. The turmoil within the Punjab Congress could come in handy to the BJP in this quest. The other possibility is that the party could repair its broken equation with the Akalis in Punjab. The coming days will throw up interesting outcomes in Punjab. But overall, if the Congress in Punjab is dethroned, and another party comes to power in the state, backed by the BJP, Modi might feel that his tactical retreat on farm laws has paid him back handsomely.
However, the BJP’s stakes in the elections in UP are much more than in Punjab. The U-turn on farm reforms could be aimed at checking the rise of Rakesh Tikait in Western UP. It’s difficult to say if the BJP can manage to achieve this objective. But one thing is certain: The agitating farmer leaders and opposition parties will surely be emboldened because of this “victory”. Farmer leaders are already asking for the legal guarantee of MSPs for 23 agri-commodities. Their demand could increase to include a larger basket of commodities. Similarly, there could be demands to block the privatisation reforms of public sector enterprises — Air India, for instance — or to scuttle any other reform for that matter. The net result is likely to be slowing down the economic reforms that are desperately needed to propel growth. Instead, we may witness freebies being showered in the run-up to state elections, followed by more freebies before the General Election in 2024. This competitive populism can give some succour to the poor in the short run, which they deserve, having suffered badly during the pandemic period. But going overboard in this respect could slow down investments, and thereby growth and job creation. So, it could turn out to be a trade-off between short-term freebies (read income support) and medium- to long-term loss with respect to the momentum of economic growth and job creation.
On a positive note, the tryst with the farm laws could provide important lessons to the BJP. The most important lesson being that the process of economic reforms has to be more consultative, more transparent and better communicated to the potential beneficiaries. It is this inclusiveness that lies at the heart of democratic functioning of India. It takes time and humility to implement reforms, given the argumentative nature of our society. But doing so ensures that everyone wins.
Gurupurab — “the day of the Guru” — is the most important festival for the followers of Sikhism. It celebrates the birth of their first Guru, Guru Nanak. The purnmashi of the Kartik month, 1469, is his birth date. On his 551st birth anniversary, the Prime Minister announced that the three farm laws will be repealed in the upcoming Parliament session.
This marks a remarkable parallel to the history of Sikhism, which is closely associated with the history of Punjab. Sikhs came into conflict with Mughal laws, beginning in the reign of Emperor Jahangir. The Mughal rulers killed many Sikhs for refusing to obey their orders. Supreme sacrifices were made by the community, including Guru Arjan Dev and Guru Teg Bahadur. The sacrifice of the young sons of Guru Gobind Singh — Banda Bahadur, Bhai Mati Das, Bhai Sati Das and Bhai Dayala — is also legendary. The emergence of a Sikh empire under the reign of Maharaja Ranjit Singh is the highlight of Sikhism.
Now, once again, the farmers led by Sikhs have reaffirmed their strength against draconian laws, albeit emanating from modern democratic rulers. This movement also had an uncanny resemblance to the freedom struggle. A special session of the Congress was held in Calcutta on September 4, 1920. Lokmanya Tilak had just died and it was presided over by Lala Lajpat Rai. The Congress had met in this tense atmosphere to decide on the momentous issue of non-cooperation. Mahatma Gandhi placed the non-cooperation resolution before the Subjects Committee, which reads as: “And in view of the fact that, in the matter of the events of the April of 1919, both the said governments have grossly neglected or failed to protect the innocent people of the Punjab and punish officers guilty of unsoldierly and barbarous behaviour towards them, and have exonerated Sir Michael O’Dwyer who proved himself directly responsible for most of the official crimes and callous to the sufferings of the people placed under his administration… This Congress is further of the opinion that there is no course left open for the people of India but to approve of and adopt the policy of progressive non-violent non-co-operation inaugurated by Mahatma Gandhi, until the said wrongs are righted and Swarajya is established.”
Thus, non-cooperation was born. It gave the measure of discipline and self-sacrifice, without which no nation can make real progress. It gave an opportunity to every man, woman and child to participate in this discipline and self-sacrifice. Interestingly, the three most exciting elements of the non-cooperation movement were the boycott of legislatures, lower courts and educational institutions. Later, civil disobedience was accentuated by acute economic crises in UP. Peasants were not in a position to pay taxes and the government made only a partial remission, which was wholly inadequate. Gandhiji warned the British that he would have no other course left but to resume civil disobedience on account of the plight of farmers in UP and Bengal. Verrier Elwin, an eminent English scholar, visited the regions and described the situation in UP as “the most pathetic condition of the peasants and fully justifies the steps taken by the Congress”. Elwin concluded that “the real failure to observe the spirit of the settlement appears to me to have been on the other (government) side”.
A series of ordinances issued by the British, which practically suspended all normal laws safeguarding the lives, properties and personal liberties of Indians, was strongly opposed. Madan Mohan Malaviya, on January 26, 1933, declared: “… it is estimated that nearly 1,20,000, including several thousand women and quite a number of children, have been arrested and imprisoned during the last 15 months. It is an open secret that when the government started repression, the official expectation was that they would crush the Congress in six weeks. Fifteen months have not enabled the Government to achieve the object. Twice fifteen months will not enable it to do so.”
Non-cooperation or civil disobedience gave us freedom from the British in 1947. Those who question it reveal their lack of knowledge and understanding of the freedom struggle and the sacrifices of millions. The farmers’ agitation of 2020-2021 re-establishes the relevance of non-cooperation and civil disobedience in a democratic set-up. Unconstitutional and unjust laws must always be opposed by citizens — that is the message of the freedom struggle. Equally, those in power must remember the words of Nelson Mandela from the dock at Rivonia Trial, before the Pretoria Supreme Court on April 20, 1964:
“I am the First Accused. I have already mentioned that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto. I, and the others who started the organisation, did so for two reasons. Firstly, we believed that as a result of government policy … unless responsible leadership was given to canalise and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly … all lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the government.”
The farmers’ agitation reaffirms one’s faith in peaceful resistance. The government must rule but with compassion towards all. A parliamentary majority is not a licence to legislate unconstitutional and unreasonable laws.
The government has done well to backtrack with grace and the farmers must accept this measure with equal grace. Let us hope that with the repeal, the government pushes for further constructive and ameliorative measures to support the farmers of India.
The national capital choking on polluted air caused mostly by unbothered, stubble-burning farmers was a grimly appropriate setting for the news on GoI’s withdrawal of farm reforms. It was a terrible message for liberal reforms in a country that needs liberal reforms by bags-full if it wants to ever reach mass prosperity. BJP’s poll apprehensions are not a valid policy reason for climbing down – no more than many Congress reform reversals were. Congress played the same obstructionist opposition politics on key reforms that BJP did when it was in opposition. And a small group of wealthy farmers in two small states and one part of a big state now have the assurance that the rest of the country will keep subsidising their economically irrational and environmentally dangerous production practices. A law on MSP will be the icing on this poisonous cake. Can BJP and its government learn some lessons – never mind what happens in UP and Punjab polls.
First, don’t let hubris dictate the timing and process of reforms. This newspaper supported much – though not all – of the three farm laws but was always critical of the manner in which they became laws. GoI and BJP should have held consultations because they should have figured that rich farmers have been cosseted for so long that ramming reforms through may produce a big reaction. Second, don’t attempt too much at one go when it comes to sections like farmers. Farm reforms message got clouded by including provisions like corporate leasing of farm land – that was a gift to leftwing agitpropists, who teamed up with rich farmers and fashioned a false narrative of ‘big capital vs humble kisan’.
Can the farm reform process be renewed, with better political management this time? Hopes are not high right now. But the stakes just got higher – India’s future as a modern economic power.
The US State Department’s latest advisory for American citizens has, among other warnings, the point that rape is one of the fastest-growing crimes in India. This may send ultra-nationalist Indians into a lather, but its larger truth is undeniable. In 2018, there were almost 34,000 rapes reported, meaning that a woman reported rape every 15 minutes. Also note, the conviction rate for rape is usually less than 30%.
India has seen an 873% rise in crimes against women in the last five decades. Of course, the numbers might not be a direct reflection of violence, since it could just indicate that more women are willing to report sexual crime and that the police is more receptive to their testimony. On the other hand, these numbers are certainly underestimates, because the vast majority of rapists are known to their victims, who never seek legal redress.
Sexual violence is often an enactment of social power, or a punishment when women step out of line. Today, even as more young Indian women seek autonomy, they are being curbed by a safety discourse that places the burden on them, rather than on the men who commit sexual crimes. The US advisory only concerns its own citizens, but we should be more anguished about the lack of mobility and freedom for our own women citizens, who make up a full half of this nation.
Last Saturday, at a rally in Azamgarh, home minister Amit Shah asked the gathering: “Does anyone feel Jinnah is great?” Then, without a pause, he answered his own question: “No one”. I’m afraid he is wrong. I have no doubt millions of our countrymen would want to say yes — even if few, in today’s circumstances, would do so publicly. But I shall write about two who did say it publicly. They are revered former leaders of the minister’s party. It would be salutary to recall their view of Jinnah.
First, LK Advani, a former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president, one of Shah’s illustrious predecessors as home minister, and the party’s original iron man. In June 2005, in comments in the visitor’s book at Jinnah’s mausoleum, he wrote: “My respectful homage to this great man.” Recalling Sarojini Naidu’s description of Jinnah as an “Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity”, Advani proceeded to call Jinnah’s Constituent Assembly speech of August 11, 1947 “really a classic, a forceful espousal of a secular state in which, while every citizen would be free to practice his own religion, the state shall make no distinction between one citizen and another on grounds of faith”.
I would say Advani’s admiration of Jinnah was most obvious when he wrote: “There are many people who leave an inerasable stamp on history but there are very few who actually create history. Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was one such rare individual”.
Now, whilst Advani’s views are based on his personal knowledge and understanding, the second BJP stalwart I want to cite, former foreign, finance and defence minister Jaswant Singh, spent five years researching Jinnah and, in 2009, published a 658-page biography called Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence. He asked me to interview him before its launch. I did two, the only pre-publication interviews. Two days later, he was expelled from the BJP.
I asked if he thought Jinnah was a great man: “Oh yes, because he created something out of nothing and single-handedly stood against the might of the Congress Party and against the British who didn’t like him … Gandhi himself called Jinnah a great Indian. Why don’t we recognise that? Why don’t we see why he called him that?”
Singh revealed he felt personally drawn to Jinnah. “I was attracted by the personality … if I was not drawn to the personality I wouldn’t have written the book.” He then explained what he admired. “I admired certain aspects of his personality. His determination and the will to rise. He was a self-made man. Mahatma Gandhi was the son of a Diwan. All these (people) — Nehru and others — were born to wealth and position. Jinnah created for himself a position. He carved in Bombay, a metropolitan city, a position for himself. He was so poor he had to walk to work”.
I asked if Jinnah hated Hindus. “Wrong. Totally wrong”, Jaswant Singh replied. “His principal disagreement was with the Congress Party … he had no problems whatsoever with Hindus”.
So, I asked in conclusion, does this mean he doesn’t subscribe to the popular demonisation of Jinnah? “Of course, I don’t. To that I don’t subscribe … I think we have misunderstood him because we needed to create a demon … we needed a demon because in the 20th century the most telling event in the subcontinent was the partition of the country.”
However, the most powerful moment of these two half-hour interviews was when Jaswant Singh spoke about India’s treatment of its Muslim citizens. “Look into the eyes of the Muslims that live in India and see the pain with which they live. To which land do they belong? We treat them as aliens.” And then he pointedly added: “Every Muslim that lives in India is a loyal Indian and we must treat them as so”.
Now let me end with a question for today’s BJP: How could you have forgotten about Advani and Jaswant Singh?
Karan Thapar is the author of Devil’s Advocate: The Untold Story
When the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government decided to bring in a set of reformist (and much required) farm laws which provoked fierce opposition from a set of stakeholders, it was an important political signal of commitment to economic reforms.
When the government decided that even if the passage of the laws created a popular agitation in a border state with a history of insurgency (Punjab); sparked the exit of one of its oldest politically allies (Akali Dal); created a blockade-like situation around the national Capital; expanded to neighbouring states (Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh); triggered violence on Republic Day (including at Red Fort); set off murmurs of discontent among members of the armed forces belonging to the same communities as those at the forefront of the protests (Sikhs and Jats); gave fresh ammunition to separatist forces (Khalistani groups), who then sought to leverage the discontent on the ground and mobilise resources; generated criticism from international quarters (remember Rihanna); and led to the largest, and longest, mass movement in recent Indian history, the laws were still worth pursuing, it was an even bigger signal of political determination.
And when the government decided that while it was willing to engage in talks, make concessions on the substance of the law, and even suspend it but not repeal it, under any circumstances, then it signalled that the political leadership had thrown all its weight and credibility behind a signature legislative and policy measure.
When the same government, then, announced on Friday that it will pilot the withdrawal of the laws, in deference to the concerns of those sections who opposed it, then it cannot but be interpreted as a political setback. And when a government not known for usually reversing major political, economic or legislative measures — irrespective of the extent of national or international opposition — does so, then it comes with an even deeper political significance.
That is why both the NDA government’s determination to pursue the farm laws, and now its decision to step back from the laws, marks one of the defining episodes of its seven-and-a-half tenure in power. It will have implications for both the future political direction of the establishment and of the Opposition in India.
It is important to first grasp the roots of the reversal. There are two explanations. Those partial to the government’s latest decision believe that it has changed course due to the rising alienation among Sikhs and the potential of separatist groups to stir up trouble — but this does not explain the timing of the decision, for rising Sikh anger has been a fact for over a year. And intelligence agencies have long warned that Delhi’s perceived insensitivity is becoming a propaganda tool used for radicalisation.
The second, more likely, explanation is the clear electoral imperative at play, especially in Uttar Pradesh (UP). Anger against farm laws, but more generally against the government’s attitude to the farm protests, was spreading from west UP to the Terai, especially after Lakhimpur Kheri; internal feedback revealed that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s carefully choreographed religious- and caste-based identity politics was slowly colliding with emerging class-based farmer solidarities. In Punjab, the BJP was looking at a washout. In Haryana, the Manohar Lal Khattar government was getting steadily weaker; and the language of coercion used by him and other government functionaries had made even the functioning of the State apparatus difficult in pockets. The political costs of staying the course with the laws were escalating. And there were no political rewards, for the gambit of framing the farm movement as a narrative of rich farmers and entitled intermediaries protecting their privilege versus small farmers who would benefit from the laws hadn’t struck a chord.
For the BJP then, dropping political pride and retreating on the laws, instead, could open up political possibilities. In west UP, Jat anger could be neutralised and Bharatiya Kisan Union leader Rakesh Tikait could even become a potential ally against the Jayant Chaudhary-Akhilesh Yadav duo. In Punjab, a BJP-Amarinder Singh-Akali Dal alliance would be possible, with all three fighting a battle for relevance. And in Haryana, suddenly, Dushyant Chautala (who was under pressure from his Jat base to leave the government) could get a breather and the Khattar government could remain stable and recover its credibility.
But for all of this to happen, the PM had to own the decision to withdraw the laws — and play up the one special card that had always served him well: Intent. If anyone has the political capital to do this, it is Narendra Modi. And that is why in his address, the PM focused on his government’s intent being noble even as he displayed humility and offered an apology for being unable to convince everyone of this. This, the party will hope, will be enough to win over constituencies which have been alienated, especially in UP.
But the implications go beyond immediate electoral calculations.
Oppositional politics usually has two operational routes in a democracy — through institutions, and outside institutions. The Parliament, the judiciary and the media provide institutional channels of checks and dissent. The expectation is that the government takes into account the issues and perspectives articulated through these channels at different stages of policymaking, from conception to execution. Even if the Opposition does not get its way, it then goes away feeling it has been heard and its core concerns have been taken into account.
The other route is outside institutions, and is increasingly preferred when constituencies opposing the government believe other democratic channels are closed. This takes the form of street agitations and mass movements (which are permissible and constitutional) and violence (which is impermissible and unconstitutional). The farm movement was largely non-violent, but did take the street route. And it succeeded. This has the potential of creating a precedent and encouraging other groups to adopt a similar path, outside established institutions.
Oppositional politics also has been divided on the best ideological route to take on the BJP. Challenging the ruling dispensation on its politics of religion has fetched limited dividends, primarily because the old politics of secularism is discredited. But there is a strong Left-wing impulse within both civil society and parliamentary parties, including the current Congress leadership, which will see in this episode a signal to step up its anti-reform politics. The process of privatisation, monetisation of assets, and a range of other economic measures which the government has in mind, will suddenly encounter more fierce opposition. That may not be good for either the economy or the country in the long-term — but that is a debate for another column.
On the other side, within the establishment, a fierce debate has broken out between the economic Right — which is unhappy with the reversal of reforms — and the partisan Right, which backs the government, irrespective of its decisions. If establishing a consensus on wider policy and economic issues becomes difficult, the BJP will be tempted to resort, even more, to the one strand in its politics which unites its disparate constituencies — more assertive Hindutva.
And, therefore, irrespective of immediate electoral implications, the reversal of the farm laws will alter politics in fundamental ways in the run-up to 2024.
letters@hindustantimes.com
The erstwhile Soviet Union launching the world’s first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, into outer space in October 1957 was a watershed moment in human history. It marked the first shot in the space race. The Soviets followed it up with a series of firsts. The first living creature, Laika, a Siberian husky, was launched into the earth’s orbit in Sputnik 2. Lunik 3 was later launched to photograph the dark side of the moon.
These events occurred at the peak of the Cold War. The two superpowers were battling it out across theatres, from aerospace and nuclear capabilities to Olympic game performances.
The United States (US), which had perceived military superiority over its great rival, was stunned to suddenly find itself in a position where it had to play catch-up. But the US quickly regrouped. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa) was established in October 1958.
The Soviets still stayed ahead, and won the race to put the first man in outer space. US President John F Kennedy announced the Apollo programme soon afterwards, with landing the first person on the moon by the end of that decade being the stated objective. The US succeeded and decisively surged ahead.
A few steps that were taken by man then did lead to many giant leaps for mankind. Currently, over 70 countries have their own space programmes.
Concurrently, India evolved into a space powerhouse. Soon after the initial Soviet space successes, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru took the initiative to create the Indian National Committee for Space Research (INCOSPAR). Led and guided by stalwarts such as Vikram Sarabhai and Homi Jehangir Bhabha, it counted APJ Abdul Kalam as among its early members. India launched its first rocket as early as 1963. Incredible photographs still circulate from those days, of rocket parts taken to the launch centre in Thumba, an obscure rural village in Kerala, on bicycles.
The Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro) was later formed out of INCOSPAR. ISRO’s Chandrayaan missions since then have landed, and even confirmed the presence of water on the moon. India’s Mars Orbiter, Mangalyaan entered the red planet’s orbit at a cost that was just 11% of Nasa’s Mars mission.
Currently, there are ongoing missions run by various nations, to explore planets as far as Pluto. There are attempts to set up research stations even on the moon. Space satellite technology has disrupted the communications and broadcasting sectors, and is now being used to deliver the internet to the remotest of places on the earth’s surface, wherever there is a shortage of basic infrastructure for connectivity. A few countries have even kick-started space mining projects. All these endeavours can have far-reaching positive outcomes. Meanwhile, a few tech billionaires have commenced a new race — of private space flights into space. Although currently seen as a macho contest between ultra-rich moguls, progress in this sector could one day make space travel and tourism a very exciting prospect.
Overshadowing these occurrences, US intelligence sources obtained information that China recently conducted two earth-circling hypersonic nuclear weapon tests. These would make the existing air defence systems obsolete. The US issued a statement saying that it is concerned about China’s novel nuclear-capable delivery systems.
This is hardly surprising since the burgeoning number of carriers and military bases in the Indo-Pacific, and elsewhere, meant to check expanding Chinese influence, at present has no defence against this innovation.
Pentagon’s top general Mark Milley described these tests as “close to a Sputnik moment”. India, the US, Russia, and France are among the other nations working on similar weaponry. China’s breakthrough will definitely spur other nations on to quickly gain ground, since, unfortunate as it is, the promise of retaliation and Mutually Assured Destruction remains the lone deterrence and protection against these lethal weapons. This would also be the harbinger of another, more potent and expensive space and nuclear-arms race, making our turbulent planet an even more dangerous place to live in.
Anil K Antony is a tech entrepreneur and public policy commentator, and works on Congress’s digital initiatives
Leaders at the Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow intended the summit to be a turning point in the campaign to battle the climate crisis. But they ended up saying nothing about the fundamental cause of the phenomenon — the way we live our lives. Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi tried to steer the conference in that direction.
In his address, he called for a one-word movement to be known as Life — standing for Lifestyle for Environment, and urged all the world leaders “to come together and take Life forward as a campaign”. But, in the final statement of the conference, there was no mention of lifestyle.
India gained credit with its investment in solar and new commitments, but lost some of it when it was seen as having combined with China to dilute the language on coal. It does have to be said that even the watered down commitment was a step forward because it was the first time coal was specifically mentioned in a United Nations climate pact.
COP26 proceeded as though the climate crisis could be averted merely by greening energy supplies. That is proving difficult enough to do. Australia’s PM Scott Morrison even suggested that scientists, technologists, engineers, and business people will achieve the target of net-zero emissions.
In other words, there is no need to do anything about lifestyle, the economics, which have brought the problem of the climate crisis to its current pass. This is a mistaken view.
How much energy do we need was a question that was not asked at COP26. It is obvious that developing countries need more energy but do the developed countries need to consume as much energy as they do? Is it heresy to suggest that the energy needs of the developing countries can be reduced if they didn’t follow the path which has led to such an energy intensive lifestyle? But they can’t be expected to change direction until the rich countries change first.
The ancient wisdom of religions tells us what is fundamentally wrong with our current lifestyle. The manner in which nature has been regarded as a resource to be exploited is contrary to the teachings of all Indic religions, as well as against the belief that we are part of one great unity. All religions condemn greed but consumerism is rampant in the way we live our lives.
A month before COP26, some 40 leaders of different faiths, including the Pope and representatives of Islam and Indic religions, signed an appeal in the Vatican pointing out that their faiths taught that they are “deeply interdependent with each other and with the natural world”. To fulfill our responsibility to protect the natural world, faith leaders said we need “to change the narrative of development”.
In his book, The Great Derangement, Amitav Ghosh maintains that the representatives of governments cannot confront the climate crisis on their own. He suggests that already existing communities and mass organisations need to be at the forefront of the struggle, and says “those with religious affiliations possess the ability to mobilise people in far greater numbers than any others.”
In India, almost all the world’s religions have a historic home but the voice of faith on the climate crisis is hardly heard. Religious leaders must come together to demand a change in the narrative of development, in the way we live our lives.
On Friday, Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi announced that the government would pilot the repeal of farm laws. This is undoubtedly a setback for the ruling dispensation, given that the PM had invested tremendous political capital in supporting the laws despite a sustained agitation against the move. But Mr Modi candidly acknowledged that the government had failed to convince a segment of the farmers about the value of the laws. Electoral imperatives — especially the upcoming polls in Punjab, and more importantly, Uttar Pradesh — appear to have played a key role in the decision. And the Bharatiya Janata Party probably calculated that the political costs of staying the course with the laws were greater than the costs that came with a rollback.
This newspaper continues to believe that the farm laws were an important economic step. There is little doubt that agriculture needs a fundamental transformation, including through more liberal markets and greater interface with industry – but the government could have gone about it differently, and with a more collaborative mindset. Instead the reforms were first effected through the ordinance route. Then, when the bills did come before Parliament, they were pushed through without sending them to a parliamentary committee, which would have led to political inputs, revision, and then a wider political buy-in. And finally, despite agriculture being a state subject, states were not consulted on the radical changes. The fallout of these saw the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lose its oldest political ally in Punjab, the Shiromani Akali Dal. The laws also faced opposition from most states not ruled by the BJP, and, more importantly, from a coalition of farm groups. The opposition saw the coalescence of the interests of economic (agriculturists), religious (Sikhs), and caste (Jats) groups. Even though the government held a series of discussions with farm groups, it made no headway in the face of a maximalist position adopted by the latter. Meanwhile, the atmosphere was vitiated by the regime’s political supporters demonising the protesters, linking them with terror groups and separatists.
The episode throws up lessons. When it comes to contentious political economy questions, it is neither possible to reform by stealth nor through the power of a brute parliamentary majority. Listen to stakeholders, be inclusive, respect established legislative processes, recognise the diversity of India’s socioeconomic mosaic, and embrace the democratic spirit. That is the only way to govern India – else, even efforts to legislate well-meaning, and necessary laws may come to nought.
Prime Minister Modi, in his address to the nation, announced the withdrawal of the three contentious farm laws and apologised to all those who had suffered because of the same. Farmers, basically from the states of Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh have been agitating for the past one year demanding the withdrawal of the three farm laws. The farmers have been organizing dharna on all the roads leading to the national capital, Delhi and repeated attempts by the central government to resolve the issue amicably failed to bear any fruit as the farmers wanted the rescinding of the three farm laws as a precondition for any fruitful talks to solve the problems faced by the farmers.
Although the operation of these farm laws were put on hold by the apex court long ago but that did not lead to any reconciliation between the government and the agitating farmers. The government always maintained that it is willing to discuss everything except scrapping of the three farm laws. It seemed that the government was in no mood to take back these farm laws ,come what may. From time to time, those in favor of these farm laws argued that the reforms driven image of the Modi government will take a beating if it succumbs to the pressure mounted by agitating farmers. It was also said that these farm laws were going to revolutionize the Agri sector and benefit the farmers immensely. But the agitating farmers were not convinced and presented their side quite forcefully resulting in a long stalemate between the two sides. Finally today the PM announced the withdrawal of the three farm laws and said that although his government had promulgated the farm laws only in the interest of farmers and he sincerely believed that these laws were going to change farmers lives for the better but unfortunately the government failed to convince the farmers community at large regarding the benefits of the these farm laws. In his address, he apologised to all those who suffered due to this. He also announced setting up of a committee consisting of the representatives of central government, state governments, agriculture experts, farmers representatives etc to look into the other specific issues raised by the farmers. He promised the farmers that he will do everything possible to make their lives better and prosperous.
Undoubtedly the central government had been debating, for decades, to address some of the core issues concerning the farm sector and many committees and Agri experts had made recommendations along the lines of the three contentious farm laws. There are many who want more policy reforms to liberalize the farm produce marketing sector further but there are many who argue for "no entry" for corporations. Policy framing in any sector has to balance between the two competing demands with primacy on growth and prosperity. But when a vocal section of the population expresses serious reservations about any policy initiative and goes on agitating unrelentingly for months, the government has to heed the voices emanating from protest sites.
Democracy is all about elected governments bowing down to people’s wishes and in that sense the decision taken by PM Modi is praiseworthy as he openly acknowledged the fact that farmers were not convinced by the arguments put forth by his government. Hence he bowed to the wishes of the people and has withdrawn the three farm laws.
In any parliamentary democracy, every political outfit always takes decisions with an eyes on electoral gains. The same logic is behind the withdrawal of the farm laws. With elections looming large on the horizon in important states like Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand etc, the cost-benefit analysis of the decisions had to be worked out by the Modi government. So political compulsions must have played a major role in this decision. This decision is going to pay dividends in these important states going to polls and will lead to realignment of various parties in the fray. In Punjab, this will remove the main irritant between the two oldest allies and has the potential of changing the electoral prospects of contesting parties.
There is a lesson to be learned from this for all political dispensations. Nothing is above the people’s will and decision makers should always keep their eyes and ears open to listen to the masses. No policy description is sacrosanct and experts advice should always be weighed against people’s perception. In this regard, it can be said that the Prime Minister acted wisely in not only bowing to the people’s wishes but also acted magnanimously by apologising to those who suffered because of this decision. Those who show the courage to accept mistakes and make corrections need to be applauded- irrespective of the reason behind their actions. Magnanimity is what is needed in every public authority universally.
The author is former fertiliser secretary, Government of India.