Three back-to-back summits in the past fortnight have helped settle the dust on who stands where on the Russian invasion of Ukraine: the BRICS (June 23-24), followed by the G-7 summit (June 26 and 27), and then the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit in Madrid (June 29). Prime Minister Narendra Modi attended the BRICS summit virtually, and then travelled to Germany for the G-7 outreach between the seven “most industrialised nations” and the special invitees this year, namely, Argentina, Indonesia, India, Senegal and South Africa. India was not a part of the NATO summit, which included an outreach to the United States’s Indo-Pacific treaty allies, i.e., Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.
In order to understand what they portend for the future global world order, it is necessary to study the messages sent out by each of these groupings against the backdrop of the situation in Ukraine. Some of the impact will be made clearer this week as India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar attends a Foreign Ministers meeting of the G-20, “the world’s largest economies”, in Bali (July 7-8), and in the next few months, when Indonesia hosts the G-20 summit in November and India takes over the G-20 presidency in December. Most importantly, how can India, that has hitherto managed a careful balancing act between all the groupings, build a movement out of this moment of deep polarisation in the world?
BRICS-G7-NATO
The Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa Summit hosted by Chinese President Xi Jinping in virtual format was significant as it was the first such multilateral grouping Russian President Vladimir Putin attended since February 24, 2022 (the day Ukraine was invaded), and both Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin took aim at the unilateral economic sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union. The fact that Mr. Modi agreed to join the summit showed India’s commitment to BRICS as an alternate grouping of economies spotlighted India’s refusal to shun Russia, and agreement to set aside the two-year stand-off with China’s People's Liberation Army at the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in favour of multilateral meetings such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). The BRICS Beijing Declaration was a consensus document, as each member cited differing “National Positions” on the Ukraine issue. However, the BRICS economic initiatives, that Mr. Modi lauded as “practical”, contain several challenges to the western-led sanctions regime against Russia. In addition to BRICS’s New Development Bank (NDB), that has approved about 17 loans totalling $5 billion for Russian energy and infrastructure projects, the “Contingent Reserve Arrangement” (CRA), and a BRICS Payments Task Force (BPTF) for coordination between their central banks for an alternative to the SWIFT payments system, Mr. Putin also proposed building a global reserve currency based on a “basket of currencies” and trading in local currencies. Russia also committed to providing more oil and coal supplies to BRICS countries, which will no doubt raise red flags in the West, as will the possible admission of countries such as Argentina and Iran that have applied to the BRICS mechanism.
A day after BRICS, Mr. Modi left for the G-7 Summit at Germany’s Schloss Elmau, proof, if any was required, of India’s flexibility in dealing with both sides of the conflict. In a number of statements, the G-7 (the U.S., the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the European Union) targetted Russia’s war in Ukraine and China’s economic aggression. However its outreach documents — on “Resilient Democracies” and “Clean and Just Transitions towards Climate Neutrality” — the only ones that India and other invitees signed on to, were devoid of any mentions of either.
At the NATO meeting, however, there was little sign of any restraint as the group comprising the U.S., Canada and European countries committed to more NATO actions against “Russian aggression”. These included, for the first time, a reference to “systemic competition” from China as a challenge to NATO “interests, security and values”. The presence of the U.S.’s trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific military allies at one conference sent out a clear message against a perceived Russia-China alliance. The launch of another Indo-Pacific coalition — of “Partners in the Blue Pacific” (PBP), i.e., the U.S., the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and Japan, in addition to last year’s Australia-U.K.-U.S. (AUKUS), is another signal of the U.S.’s growing focus on countries that it has military alliances with, against its adversaries. Apart from the Indo-Pacific partners at the summit, there were leaders of the five countries that have applied to join NATO, i.e., Finland, Georgia, Sweden, Ukraine (President Zelensky gave a virtual address), and Bosnia Herzegovina (its Defence Minister attended). The direct message was that NATO would no longer consider Russian sensitivities on the subject of NATO expansion.
India must lead
The outcome of all three summits points to a growing polarisation, even battle lines being drawn, between the Western Atlantic-Pacific axis and the Russia-China combine. So where does this leave India? The Narendra Modi government has committed to a singular strategy, albeit a defensive one, that does not condone Russia for its attacks on Ukraine, but one that does not criticise it either. First, India has joined China as global economies that have most increased their intake of Russian oil, and where India continues to source fertilizer, cement and other commodities from Russia using different means, including even paying in the Chinese Yuan to circumvent sanctions. Second, India is working to diversify its defence purchases from Russia, hostilities with China are high, and a strategic tilt towards the U.S. and Quad partners in the Indo-Pacific is growing. On the multilateral stage, too, India remains a balancing voice in the room: along with Brazil and South Africa, India ensured that the BRICS Beijing declaration did not carry the Russian position on the Ukraine war or any criticism of the West, while making certain with other partners of the global South that the G-7 outreach documents carried no criticism of Russia and China.
This perilous tightrope walk, however, is unlikely to suffice as a long-term strategy. It is time for New Delhi to seize the moment for leadership in a world that is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the growing polarisation and the disruption due to the Ukraine war. India is not alone. In Germany, Mr. Modi found common cause on this with the Indonesian President, Joko Widodo, who is trying ensure that both sides of the world attend the G-20 summit he will host in Bali in November, amid growing worries that leaders of at least nine member countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the U.K., the U.S., as well as the European Union) could stay away from sessions where Mr. Putin speaks. As the next President of the G-20, Mr. Modi also must shoulder the burden of ensuring that the G-20 stays together, and reassuring those worried by the brinkmanship of the West on one side and Russia and China on the other.
Gather the like-minded
These countries are more numerous than one can imagine. At the United Nations General Assembly, for example, a majority of 141 countries voted to castigate Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, but much fewer, only 93, voted to oust Russia from the Human Rights Council. Even more significantly, only 40 countries joined the U.S. and Europe-led sanctions regime against Russia. This represents a large pool of independently-minded countries that do not see it in their own national interest to blandly choose one side over another. Instead of abstaining on every vote or being defensive about sanctions, therefore, India’s national interests would be better served by building a community of those like-minded countries (from South America to Africa, the Gulf to South Asia and to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations), who cannot afford the hostilities, and want to avoid the possibility of a global war at all costs. Like Mr. Widodo, who flew from Germany to Kyiv and Moscow to talk to Mr. Zelensky and Mr. Putin, Mr. Modi is amongst the few leaders today still able to speak to both sides. The group of those who can urge for sanity to prevail must grow.
Words that matter
In 1955, it was in such a similar moment that India took leadership of (along with countries such as Indonesia and Egypt at the Asian-African Conference of 29 newly independent nations, at Bandung), a conference that eventually led to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). “If all the world were to be divided up between these two big blocs what would be the result?” asked Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru at Bandung. “The inevitable result would be war. Therefore, every step that takes place in reducing that area in the world which may be called the unaligned area is a dangerous step and leads to war. It reduces that objective, that balance, that outlook which other countries without military might can perhaps exercise.”
While the Narendra Modi government has shown little interest in NAM or even in Nehruvian thought, it may be necessary to reconsider Nehru’s words in a world fraught with danger nearly 70 years later. This is the time to rethink India’s role in “growing the unaligned area” and bringing the “objective and balanced” outlook Nehru spoke of, to the forefront of India’s strategic policy, by channelling that thought from Bandung, to Bali and Delhi this year.
suhasini.h@thehindu.co.in
The monumental indirect tax reform, the Goods and Services Tax (GST), has completed five years in existence. Before the implementation, it was said that it would be a boon to the economy in terms of higher revenue buoyancy, lower inflation, higher revenue, higher growth, and so on. On the completion of GST’s five years, it makes sense to ask what happened to inflation.
During the 12 months preceding GST implementation, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation was 3.66%, while it increased to 4.24% post-GST in the next 12 months. However, India is not alone in witnessing higher inflation. A similar pattern was observed in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. An Australian Competition and Consumer Commission study showed that GST initially increases inflation.
Based on the actual inflation numbers, one can conclude that GST had an inflationary impact on India. But this is not the correct approach to understand whether GST raised inflation in India. Before we systematically examine this issue, let us understand how GST can affect prices.
Understanding the mechanism
In theory, implementing GST should not lead to a change in overall inflation. The revenue-neutral rate (RNR) is calculated so that it would not cause higher inflation. But revenue neutrality does not mean that prices would not go up or down in the economy. This is because the weight of goods in the consumption basket and their contributions to indirect tax collections are not the same. For example, food and drinks (which comprise 46% of the CPI index), rent, and clothing are all significant parts of the CPI basket that are either not taxed or taxed at low rates.
Importantly, the effect of GST on the prices of certain goods and services depends on the structure and design of taxation, such as the level of exemptions, the rate structure of GST, the weight of goods and services in the CPI basket, the tax base, the efficiency of the administrative machinery, and so on.
The RBI, in a 2017 report, showed that about half of the groups of items that GST covers are not in the CPI basket. This study found headline inflation might rise by ten basis points only. So, the effect of GST on prices was expected to be small. Finally, prior to the GST implementation, it was expected that prices would go down because GST harmonises indirect tax rates and eliminates the cascading effect. Thus, whether GST has any effect depends on how different factors affect each other.
So, how can we ascertain whether GST has had an inflationary impact in India? To answer this, we turn to statistical modelling, which will give us a precise and neat estimate of the causal impact of an intervention. In a nutshell, this model uses pre-intervention data (before July 2017) to train the data to estimate the counterfactual estimates of inflation. A counterfactual estimate is nothing but an estimate of inflation if the intervention (in this case, GST) had not occurred. Then the causal estimate would be the difference between the actual and the counterfactual trends. The outcome variable chosen is retail inflation (CPI).
Our statistical results provide us with an interesting picture of the impact of GST on price levels. First, we look into the overall price index (CPI). Here, the actual CPI growth in the study period is 4.61%, whereas the counterfactual estimate of inflation is 3.24%. This implies that without the GST implementation, the CPI inflation would have been 3.24%. This indicates that with the implementation of GST, CPI increased by 1.37 percentage points (pp). Second, we also find that CPI core inflation (which strips off volatile components such as food and fuel from the headline inflation) increased by 1.04pp in the post-GST period (actual inflation was 4.57%, counterfactual inflation was 3.53%).
Third, GST is found to have a significant positive impact on inflation of commodity groups such as paan, tobacco and intoxicants, clothing and footwear, housing, and miscellaneous sectors (mainly consisting of services).
In the case of non-exempted food and beverages, implementation of GST is found to have a negative impact of 4.42% on price levels.
Rise in inflation post GST
The rise in inflation post-GST implementation could be due to the rise in the tax rate of some goods and services, the inclusion of business activities that were not taxed earlier, or the market structure. The average weighted GST rate was designed to be neutral, so it might not have contributed much to the observed higher inflation. Coverage of business activities under GST not taxed earlier would result in higher prices since the firms would pass on the cost to the consumers. Although the informal sector suffered following GST implementation, many firms have jumped to the tax net to take advantage of input tax credit and escape from the punishing reverse charge mechanism.
There is another possibility which would cause higher inflation after the GST implementation. Textbook microeconomics teaches us that market competition leads to lower prices. And when market power increases, prices increase, and profit follows. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz opined, rising market power is bad for the economy as it raises economic inefficiency and lowers the economy’s resiliency. Further, taking advantage of market power, it is possible that most firms would have passed the taxes to end consumers, resulting in a cost-push inflationary impact of the GST.
Our statistical exercises provide conclusive proof that GST implementation has had an inflationary impact on the Indian economy. Let us recall that prices of petroleum products increased significantly, which might have contributed to the rise in CPI after the GST implementation.
To summarise, our statistical results suggest that GST implementation has resulted in a decrease in inflation of food items and raised inflation of non-food items such as CPI, paan, tobacco and intoxicants, clothing and footwear, housing, miscellaneous, and non-exempted food and beverages.
Our analysis suggests that prior to GST implementation, market concentration measured by various indicators was rising, suggesting an oligopolistic market structure. This determines whether the benefits of GST are passed down to the consumers or not. However, withpa the existence of market power, firms’ price includes a significant mark-up over marginal costs. Our results point out the possibility of profiteering in select segments after GST. To pre-empt this possibility, the government set up National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) to ensure companies did not use GST as an excuse to raise prices.
Our findings suggest that NAA should monitor the prices of critical or essential goods and services to see the price impact of GST. Similarly, the Competition Commission of India should observe anti-competitive producer behaviour that hurts consumers via excessive price increases. These measures may ensure that producers do not take advantage of the GST.
Santosh Kumar Dash and Anoop S. Kumar are Assistant Professors of Economics at Gulati Institute of Finance and Taxation, Thiruvananthapuram. Views are personal
The judgment by a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India inM/s Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit-II , on February 22, 2022 has struck a blow for public good.
Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat dismissed the Special Leave Petition by Apex Laboratories to claim deduction on freebies given to doctors. Upholding a decision by the Madras High Court, the Bench said that the act of pharmaceutical companies giving freebies to doctors is clearly ‘prohibited by the law’. Further, it cannot be claimed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The judgment will go a long way in checking unethical and illegal practices in the pharma sector which has become so out of reach for the common man.
A case of misuse
Repelling the contention of the company by S. Ganesh, Senior Counsel, Justice Ravindra Bhat said that pharmaceutical companies have misused a legislative gap to actively perpetuate the commission of an offence of giving freebies to doctors to promote their brands, even though this was prohibited in the law framed by the Medical Council of India (MCI). In the said case, the company was giving out freebies to doctors in order for them to create awareness about a health supplement it was manufacturing called Zincovit.
The judge said that in the process of interpretation of the law, it is the responsibility of the court to discern the social purpose which the specific provision subserves. The judgment said: “Thus, pharmaceutical companies’ gifting freebies to doctors, etc. is clearly ‘prohibited by law’ and not allowed to be claimed as a deduction under Section 37(1). Doing so would wholly undermine public policy. The well-established principle of interpretation of taxing statutes — that they need to be interpreted strictly — cannot sustain when it results in an absurdity contrary to the intentions of the Parliament.”
Upholding the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) circular dated August 1, 2012, and applying it to the case, the Court also cited and relied upon Regulation 6.8 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 framed under the Medical Council Act, 1956, now repealed and substituted by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. The Court also highlightedQuereshi (2007) 2 SCC 759 andCommissioner Of Income Tax vs Khemchand Motilal Jain to show that the assessee was not a wilful participant in any offence or illegal activity prohibited by law.
While overruling the Income Tax Tribunal’s view in the case ofPHL Pharma (2017) andMax Hospital (2014) ILR 1 P. 620, the Court held that Regulations 2002 did apply to pharma companies also. Further, they could not be allowed to perpetuate the illegality of violations of norms by doctors. Invoking the principle of implied condition, the Court relied on the precedents in the case ofP.V. Narasimha Rao (1998) 4 SCC 626 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, andJamal Uddin Ahmad (2003) 4 SCC 257 under the Representation of the People Act.
Laying emphasis on the fiduciary relationship between doctor and patient, the Court noted that a doctor’s prescription is considered as the final word on medication by the patient even if the cost of such medication is unaffordable. In a situation where such trust is reposed in doctors, having prescriptions manipulated by the lure of freebies is immoral. The Court was conscious that the cost of such freebies is factored in the cost of medicines sold, in turn driving up their prices and perpetuating a publicly injurious cycle. This fact was taken note of by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its 45th report, dated August 4, 2010.
In the U.S.
In its elaborate judgment, the Court also took note of a report issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office called “Savings Available Under Full Generic Substitution of Multiple Source Brand Drugs in Medicare Part D” dated July 23, 2018. Here, it was stated that the beneficiaries could have saved over $600 million in out-of-pocket payments had they been dispensed generic equivalent drugs. In a previous study by ProPublica titled “Dollars for Doctors: Now There is Proof: Docs who get Company Cash Tend to Prescribe Brand Name Meds” dated March 17, 2016 also, similar feelings were echoed. In the U.S., by the reason of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act 2010 also known as Section 6002 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010, the law compels the manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologic and medical supplies to report to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, on three broad categories of payments or transfers of value such as meals, travel reimbursements and consulting fees. These include expenses borne by manufacturers such as speaker fees, travel, gifts, honoraria, entertainment, charitable contribution, education, grants and research grants, etc.
The issue of retail price
Obviously, the uncovered field in this judgment — and it was not the controversy in hand before the Court — is the sale of medicines at Maximum Retail Price, or MRP. This is a scam and a case of underhand dealing that happens in the pharma world (the giving away of freebies is a smaller part of it) because drugs are invariably sold in pharmacist shops at MRP only. This is what affects medical treatment. Even though the Drug Price Control Order and Drugs and Cosmetics Act are there on the statute book, there is hardly any action to keep the sale price of medicines under control with due and proper investigation into their so-called research and development costs and keeping their profit margins within a prescribed limit.
One fails to understand why the law cannot be amended to compel the manufacturer of drugs to sell at the verified genuine cost, that also factors in a reasonable profit margin for each product by bringing manufacturers, both foreign or domestic, under the control of the MCI or any other equivalent body such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. This must be at a uniform rate throughout the country; further, classified life saving drugs should be sold at cost only or even at subsidised rates.
Nobody is against the pharma industry earning a reasonable profit. But there is an urgent need to check looting that is driven by drug manufacturers to distribute their products using freebies or ‘bribes’.
Further application
This judgment can also go far. It should be debated and applied to other unethical practices and expenditure out of public funds. The strategy here should be to use financial tools such as income-tax provisions for disallowing such expenditure and taxing the same as perquisites or taxable income in the hands of recipientsviz. assurances and declarations in election campaigns by political parties by giving away free laptops, waived electricity charges, food grains, loan waivers, etc. It is tax-payers money that is being used to garner votes.
Justice Vineet Kothari is a former Acting Chief Justice of the Gujarat and Madras High Courts and Judge of the Rajasthan and Karnataka High Courts
With carbon neutrality being the byword to a sustainable world, a host of countries — Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Japan, Germany, Canada, Costa Rica, the United States, Brazil, India, and China among others — have set for themselves net-zero targets for the middle and later part of the century.
At the forefront of the commitment to net-zero is the European Union, which wants to be the first carbon-neutral region in the world by 2050. It brought out the ‘European Union Green Deal’ in July last year to focus on a new growth strategy that aims to transform the EU society into a fair and wealthy one with a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy.
CBAM: carbon-pricing system
To attain carbon neutrality, the EU has set forth immediate targets and has brought out the ‘Fit-for-55’ package, a communication of its 2030 climate targets. A provision in the policy plan is the introduction of Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), a carbon-pricing system proposed for imports into the EU. The CBAM suggests taxing the imported goods-based difference between carbon used in the production of domestic and imported goods.
Proposed to be complementary to the EU Emission Trading Scheme (EUETS), during the transition phase of CBAM — beginning January 1, 2023 — importers will only have to report emissions embedded in the production of goods and are not obliged to pay a financial penalty. The CBAM, however, will come completely into force from January 1, 2026 and the measure will see a gradual reduction of free EUETS allowance coverage of 10 percentage points per year and a complete phase-out by 2035. In the initial phase, five CITE (Carbon Intensive and Trade Exposed) sectors such as iron and steel, aluminium, cement, fertilizers and electricity will be taxed under CBAM.
The EU claims that CBAM is intended to reduce carbon leakage, create a level playfield for EU producers and encourage producers in other countries to adopt cleaner technologies. But several discussions have cropped up around CBAM. Developing countries have raised their concern on the legality of CBAM pointing out its conflict with World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) norms, and are afraid that it encourages protectionism.
History provides several instances of conflict between domestic restrictive policies stating environmental concern and trade openness such as the Shrimp-Turtle Case andAir Transport Association of America vs Energy Secretary Case for Energy and Climate Change . Rulings in these cases have been in favour of environmental laws, proving that the ongoing debate is a continuation of pre-existing issues and, in the past, environment concerns have outweighed those related to trade.
Developing countries also flag the use of revenue collected from CBAM. According to the EU, revenue collected from CBAM will be a part of the EU’s budget, the NextGenerationEU, a recent initiative launched to provide economic support to EU member countries impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Countries opposing the proposed revenue utilisation mechanism suggest that if CBAM is to be implemented, revenue collected from it should be used for cleaner technology adoption in developing countries.
India and the EU share a healthy trade relationship. The EU is India’s third largest trading partner, while India is EU’s 11th largest trading partner. In 2019-20, India-EU trade accounted for Rs. 63.8 billion (11.1% of total Indian trade) in goods, while a total of 1.9% of EU’s total trade in goods in 2020 came to India. India exports almost 14% of its global exports to the EU.
Progressive steps
Recently, there has been increasing initiative from both sides to deepen engagement with each other. Talks on India-EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) that were stalled a while ago have picked up again and are scheduled to take place in June. The target to finalise the Free Trade Agreement has been set for 2023-24.
Both India and the EU are committed to climate change, and the recent progress in India-EU alliance opens prospects of a customised partnership and mutual growth. Rather than tax on exports to EU as proposed in CBAM, India and EU can cooperate better by investing in cleaner and greener technologies in India and helping in cleaning up production in India. Such a partnership will ensure that both India and the EU have their agendas of economic growth and sustainability fulfilled, a win-win situation for both entities.
Dr. Vatsala Sharma is Associate Fellow, and Khushi Gupta is an intern at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in New Delhi
The attack on the office of Wayanad MP Rahul Gandhi by the Students Federation of India (SFI), the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI-M]’s student wing, has put the parent party in a tight spot and provided ammunition for the Congress leadership to put the ruling front in the dock. The incident triggered a spate of attacks and counter attacks on party offices across Kerala.
Mr. Gandhi, during his three-day tour of Wayanad, his parliamentary constituency, endorsed the allegation of Congress leaders that the CPI(M) had joined hands with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He observed that Central agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation had failed to question Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan in the diplomatic gold smuggling case that had rocked the previous Left Democratic Front regime while he was questioned by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for five days.
Besides launching a broadside against the BJP, Mr. Gandhi also asked the Kerala Chief Minister to come clear on the issue of the one-km Eco-Sensitive Zone around all wildlife sanctuaries and national parks following the Supreme Court order on June 3.
In fact, the SFI workers had carried out the attack, alleging that Mr. Gandhi failed to act on the issue. But Mr. Gandhi later produced evidence that he had already written to the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister seeking their intervention to exclude human settlements from the buffer zone.
With the attack on Mr. Gandhi’s office providing a trigger for the Congress-led United Democratic Front to step up its campaign against the CPI(M), the ruling party condemned the incident and the police subsequently arrested 29 SFI activists.
But just when the damage control exercise seemed to have succeeded in bringing down the political temperature, the crude bomb attack on the AKG Centre, the CPI(M) State headquarters last week, gave rise to a fresh round of turmoil in the State. With the Opposition accusing the CPI(M) of carrying out the attack to divert public attention and the police still groping in the dark to trace the culprit, the CPI(M) leadership and the Chief Minister, who handles the Home portfolio, are left to face uncomfortable questions in the Assembly and outside.
The two incidents portend a further intensification of rivalry between the ruling CPI(M) and the Congress in Kerala. The attack on Mr. Gandhi’s office happened when the CPI(M) leadership has been pondering the role of Congress in the national political arena and its part in forging a non-BJP political alliance. The timing of the attack also seemed to have exposed the vulnerabilities in the non-BJP camp when the country is preparing for presidential polls this month.
The Congress leadership in Kerala would never have imagined the political mileage it derived in recent times from the attack on Mr. Gandhi’s office. Otherwise, it feels that the BJP, with its ambitious Central leadership, will leave no opportunity to occupy the Opposition space in the State , which is witnessing a paradigm shift with religion frighteningly progressing into politics.
Amid an increasingly hostile war of words between the CPI(M) and Congress leaders inside and outside the Legislative Assembly over the attack on the AKG Centre, the politically conscious citizenry is completely baffled over the unexplained occurrence when police stood guard outside the centre.
While the Home department definitely needs to get its act together, political parties and their feeder outfits should ensure practising a healthy political culture without resorting to hooliganism and violence.
biju.govind@thehindu.co.in
The long-drawn Test series involving England and India, which commenced on August 4 last year, concluded with a pulsating climax at Birmingham’s Edgbaston on Tuesday. In the fifth Test, England galloped towards the fourth innings target of 378 in just 76.4 overs with centurions Joe Root and Jonny Bairstow building on the momentum gifted by openers Alex Lees and Zak Crawley. The seven-wicket victory helped England draw the series at 2-2 through a comeback that stunned the visitors. Four Tests were played in 2021 when a COVID-19 scare forced the postponement of the fifth match while India led 2-1. The administrators agreed to play the fifth Test after a year and this was an interval like none other. In the intervening period, Russia invaded Ukraine, the pandemic lingered and on the sporting front, both teams evolved. India’s coach Ravi Shastri and captain Virat Kohli bowed out and Rahul Dravid and Rohit Sharma stepped in. In the rival dressing room coach Chris Silverwood and skipper Root stepped aside with Brendon McCullum and Ben Stokes being the replacements. Even if Rohit sat out due to COVID-19, under Jasprit Bumrah and thanks to the centuries by Rishabh Pant and Ravindra Jadeja, India held the reins in the final Test before an indifferent second innings and marauding England batters altered the script in favour of the host.
McCullum and Stokes have preferred aggression as the solution to help England shed its dormancy. Fourth innings targets would be attempted even if they seem improbable and the opposition will not be given the time to react. New Zealand learnt it the hard way and now it is India’s turn. McCullum, the former New Zealand captain, is known for his bludgeoning bat. His 158 for Kolkata Knight Riders against Royal Challengers Bangalore in the maiden Indian Premier League clash at Bengaluru in 2008 turbo-charged the league and put to shade the fireworks that Vijay Mallya had organised as part of the launch. McCullum’s method is stunning when he prospers and deflating when he fails. Like he did with an ugly swipe against Mitchell Starc in the 2015 World Cup final which Australia won. For now, his ‘Bazball’ method is holding England in good stead. That Root and Bairstow, two Yorkshire batters from the land of the obdurate Geoffrey Boycott, have bought into McCullum’s philosophy is a pointer to the ‘Brave New England’s’ attempt to change the face of Tests. Meanwhile India, after losing the Test series in South Africa and allowing England to claw back, will have to evaluate its overseas record. The three T20Is and the three ODIs against Old Blighty beckon and in coloured clothes, India will hope to do better.
India’s laws on freedom of expression are clear about the reasonableness of the right to exercise it. But hate speech, directed at communities and intended to fan communal hatred, is not clearly defined in the law. However, there are provisions in the law that can be interpreted as allowing for criminalising offences that are related to hate speech, in particular those that are likely to incite violence. There have been rightful demands, including from the Law Commission of India, to add specific provisions in the Indian Penal Code to tackle hate speech. It is imperative that lawmakers work on doing so, especially in the age of online media and messaging, where hate speech incidents have burgeoned into an even more significant problem. That said, there is no justification for any form of hate speech to be countered with violence. As the adage goes, sticks and stones may break bones, but words will not. There must be zero tolerance for violence. The incident in Amravati, Maharashtra, where a chemist, Umesh Kolhe, was knifed to death allegedly by three men in retaliation for his sharing a post in support of former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Nupur Sharma’s comments on the Prophet was on the same lines as the dastardly murder of a tailor, Kanhaiya Lal, in Udaipur a week ago. In both cases, suspects who were incensed by the remarks took to violence as a counter to what they perceived as an insult to their religion. The two cases are being probed by the National Investigation Agency. The culprits, those involved in the planning and execution of these murders, must be brought to book and accorded strict punishment for their crimes.
Even as these hate crimes are investigated, it is imperative on the part of the Union and the State governments to quickly reassure citizens on the need for communal amity and that the purveyors of hate speech and those indulging in violence in retaliation will be prosecuted. Justice and the application of the rule of law should not only be seen to be done, but needs to be applied in a fair manner without prejudice for or against specific communities. The Union and State governments should not adopt repressive measures by using enforcement authorities to inflict collective punishment on communities for individual acts of transgression. Political parties of all hues, but especially those in power, must refrain from fanning communal hatred. The unevenness of government actions has resulted in disenchantment among Muslims; the actions of a few criminals among the community have endangered others. It is unmistakable that the developing quagmire is related to the casual bigotry and the callousness of those who were in responsible positions in the BJP. Governments must reorient themselves to the rule of law and to strict adherence to constitutional values as the secular fabric of the country must be preserved at all costs.
Colombo, July 6: China has expressed its ‘resolute support’ for Sri Lanka’s ‘just proposition’ to keep the Indian Ocean a peace zone. A joint communique on the 11-day visit of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike, released simultaneously in Peking and Colombo to-day, contained the Chinese support to the proposal adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in December last year and added that the proposal “reflects the urgent desire of Afro-Asian countries to safeguard the national independence and State sovereignty and to oppose aggression and expansion of super powers.” In the communique, both countries “expressed their concern over the present situation in the South-Asian sub-continent and reiterated that outstanding issues in the region should be settled through peaceful negotiations on principled basis of complete equality, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs and mutual benefit and accommodation and without resorting to the use of threat of force.” Mrs. Bandaranaike said the Chinese Premier Mr. Chou En-lai, in their “friendly, cordial and candid” talks during the visit also noted “that co-operation between the two Governments and people had expanded and advanced over a wide spectrum of areas including political, economic trade as well as in the fields of culture and sports.” The joint communique also announced the Chinese government’s decision to provide Sri Lanka with long-term interest-free loans but it did not disclose the loan amount.
Bombay: Sunni Anjuman Islam recently submitted a memorial to His Excellency the Governor of Bombay, calling his attention to the increase in crime in Bombay city and to the late frequent changes in the office of the Commissioner of Police. The Government has sent a reply which says the desirability of maintaining continuity in the office of the Commissioner of Police, Bombay is fully recognised by the government. The cost involves very severe mental and physical strain and of four changes in the appointment during the last three years, three were due to the officers concerned having to vacate owing to ill health. In the fourth case, the officer concerned was promoted to the post of Inspector-General of Police.
England’s newfound, free-flowing style of play, also called “Bazball” after coach Brendon McCullum’s nickname, is all the rage in Test cricket. It has now brought about an astonishing four consecutive successful chases, the least of which has been a substantial 277 against New Zealand at Lord’s. But their latest effort, in which they chased down 378 at Edgbaston on Tuesday, with unbeaten centuries from Joe Root and Jonny Bairstow, has to also count as India’s missed opportunity. Even as England ran away with the game for a series-levelling victory on the final morning, it was India which had held the upper hand with a healthy first-innings lead.
The Birmingham letdown is the third in a worrying trend — the much-vaunted Indian pace attack’s inability to strike in the fourth innings of an overseas Test in the so-called ‘SENA’ (South Africa, England, New Zealand, Australia) countries. In Johannesburg and Cape Town at the start of this year, India failed to defend targets of 240 and 212, as hosts South Africa won comfortably by seven wickets twice. Again, it was India that had taken the initial lead on that tour as well, with a win in Centurion. The batting has also had a role in squandering these three positions of strength, with indifferent performances in the third innings.
Head coach Rahul Dravid has pointed out that India have been unable to maintain their intensity and fitness levels over the five days of these three Test reversals. It is perhaps too early in Dravid’s tenure for harsh judgments, and India did go into the Edgbaston Test with a stand-in debutant captain in Jasprit Bumrah. But nearly eight months after Dravid took over from Ravi Shastri, it is still unclear what this Indian team’s style is going to be.
Union Commerce and Food Minister Piyush Goyal wants state governments to ensure that farmers increase sowing of rice and also area under wheat. Paddy acreage in the ongoing kharif planting season is 16.1 per cent down compared to that in the same period of 2021. Arresting, if not reversing, this decline is essential for boosting India’s rice exports, which touched a record 21.2 million tonnes (mt) valued at $9.7 billion in 2021-22. Goyal is worried that rice may go the way of wheat, whose shipments were abruptly banned on May 13 after the all-time-high of 7.2 mt ($2.1 billion) achieved last fiscal. A deeper worry, though, is the government’s wheat stocks, which, at 31.1 mt on June 1, were the lowest in 14 years for that date. Stocks of rice, at 49.7 mt, were marginally higher than a year ago. But the increased requirement in view of limited wheat supplies could put pressure on rice as well — more so, if farmers plant less paddy.
But the above reasoning is flawed. To start with, India doesn’t need to step up its rice exports. The annual global rice trade is only 52-53 mt and the country’s share in that is already about 40 per cent. Exporting more, contrary to Goyal’s assumption, will only depress world prices, harming rather than helping farmers. Also, rice, like sugarcane, is a water-guzzling crop. Its cultivation should be discouraged, especially in states with relatively low rainfall and depleted aquifers. Indian farmers need to grow more pulses, oilseeds, horticulture, fodder and high-value crops. That will, in turn, spur greater consumption of foods incorporating proteins (dal, milk, eggs and meat) and micro-nutrients (fruits and vegetables), as against only calories and carbohydrates.
All this links up to the larger, disturbing point — the tendency for policymakers to increasingly focus on the short and immediate term. There could be a supply issue in wheat and rice today. But policy responses to these — banning exports or asking states to go slow on crop diversification — shouldn’t lose sight of their long-term consequences. This applies equally to the other recent actions of the Modi government, be it the imposition of tariffs on exports of diesel, petrol, aircraft fuel, iron ore and some steel products, cess on domestically produced crude or higher import duty on gold. The cost of short-termism, including on policy credibility and investor sentiment, may not be small.
The arrest last week of Mohammed Zubair, co-founder of Alt News, and the arrest drama that played out at the Ghaziabad residence of Zee News anchor Rohit Ranjan this week, speak of something similarly chilling, despite their different circumstances and specific contexts — the bar for criminalising the press is being pushed lower and lower. The IPC is being weaponised against journalists unabashedly, endangering due process and the vital protections it affords to the rights and freedoms of all citizens. And while BJP-led ruling establishments have earned themselves a deservedly dismal reputation on this count, the vindictiveness is being mimicked on the other side of the political fence. Zubair was arrested by Delhi Police that reports to the BJP-ruled Centre for a 2018 tweet that shared a clip from a 1980s’ film by Hrishikesh Mukherjee — weeks after he flagged now-suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma’s remarks on the Prophet in a TV debate. Ranjan was whisked away by UP Police on Tuesday morning, leaving the police team that swooped in from Chhattisgarh, stranded, days after his show ran a misleading video of Rahul Gandhi, for which the channel later apologised. Gandhi’s comments after an attack on his Wayanad office in Kerala were linked to the killing of a tailor in Udaipur — FIRs were promptly registered against Ranjan in the Congress-ruled states of Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh.
It is no mere coincidence that the sections cited in the FIR against Zubair — Sections 153 (A) and 295 (A), promoting enmity between different groups, and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings — also figure in the FIR against Ranjan. They are part of a spreading pattern, a template for the targeting of not just journalists, but also others who ask questions of the state, express opposition or dissent. Clearly, no lessons have been learnt by Delhi Police, for instance, which rushed to Bengaluru to arrest 22-year-old climate activist Disha Ravi last year, only to have its case, that sought to paint her as a “key conspirator” in the dissemination of a toolkit amid farmers’ protests, blow up in its face. Giving her bail, Dharmender Rana, additional sessions judge, had said: “The offence of sedition cannot be invoked to minister to the wounded vanity of the governments”; this year, an SC bench put the sedition law on hold. At the same time, however, be it misuse of IPC’s Section 124A in Ravi’s case or weaponisation of Sections 153 and 295 against Zubair and Ranjan now, the ruling establishment probably counts on an impunity offered by a higher judiciary that also takes the backward step. The SC order that upheld the SIT’s clean chit to the Gujarat government in a 2002 case recently, also, worryingly, gave the explicit cue for the FIRs against those who stood on the side of the petitioners lodged the very next day.
The Opposition needs to look at how its failure to live up to its self-righteous posturing on free speech in states where it is in power undermines the credibility of its fight against the BJP. And the BJP government must address its own glaring double standard. On the world stage, it speaks of India’s “vibrant democracy” and alongwith G-7 countries, commits to “protecting the freedom of expression and opinion online and offline”. What should be addressed by a rebuttal or a clarification is now being routed through the police station. This clamps down on press freedoms and gives a lie to those proud claims made abroad.
As the Ministry of Electronics and IT (MEITY) conducts a week-long celebration to mark eight years of the Digital India programme, Twitter has filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court against it. Far from souring a moment of national pride, it is representative of a Faustian bargain of digitisation that promises financial and social benefits when we give up our civil and political rights.
This becomes clear from the inauguration speech of the prime minister, where he launched several online platforms for global adoption and to facilitate the electronic delivery of governance services. The speech text available in Hindi contains several accomplishments and data points that would instill hope in the use of technology — India having the largest share of digital transactions in the world, building successful online platforms for vaccination, even bridging the digital divide. There is some truth to the prime minister’s statements. For instance, over the last decade there has been a ten-fold increase in broadband connectivity to 600 million broadband subscribers in India.
But it begs the question: Is mere connectivity enough to fulfil the democratic promises of the Constitution?
The Karnataka HC may soon get an opportunity to answer this question when it responds to Twitter’s legal challenge to the directions to block tweets and even handles issued by MEITY under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. As I have written before, Twitter is a foreign, Silicon Valley platform that trades in data to sustain its commercial operations. Further, there are issues with its own transparency mechanisms in content moderation decisions. However, it has been prompted to go to court to protect the integrity of its platform rather than in arrogant defiance against the laws of India. As per parliamentary data, the number of such orders has risen from 471 in 2014 to 9,849 in 2020 representing a 1991 per cent increase (Unstarred Question 1788).
Beyond mere numbers, a comprehensive qualitative assessment of such orders is prevented by official secrecy. The need for disclosure emerges directly from a joint reading of the Shreya Singhal and Anuradha Bhasin judgments. The first concerned the constitutionality of Section 66A under which the Supreme Court, while upholding the blocking powers of the government, reasoned that the writ remedies would always be available to an aggrieved person. Hence, to approach a high court in a writ, the petitioner would require the availability of the legal order. This need for transparency prior to placing any restriction on internet access (of any scope or nature) has been expressly directed when the Supreme Court examined the scope of the telecommunications shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir.
We are only allowed a slight peek behind the curtain by certain press releases of the government or unattributed statements to the media from ministry officials. Through a voluntary mechanism, Twitter sporadically uploads the specific web addresses included in blocking orders to the Lumen Database, a project that houses legal complaints and requests for the removal of content. This is a transparency practice not followed by any other social media company operating in India.
The most recent disclosures in the last week of June revealed that Twitter withheld a number of accounts and tweets in India. Many of these belonged to politicians, journalists, activists and even a global think tank such as Freedom House. We have witnessed similar situations in February and April 2021, when takedown orders were reportedly issued for content about the farmers’ protests and criticism of the Union government’s response to the second wave of Covid-19, respectively. From a citizens’ rights perspective, however, the need to rely on a voluntary mechanism is a cause for concern. It is also unsustainable as it may eventually come under threat.
Another persisting infirmity has been the failure to provide a prior show-cause notice and opportunity to the actual users whose web content is blocked. Take the case of Tanul Thakur, a journalist who in his free time made a satire website to parody the social evil of dowry. His website was blocked without any notice provided to him and the blocking order itself was never provided. Even after approaching the Delhi High Court, MEITY only provided the order to him and his lawyers. Another instance is when Sushant Singh, an actor, author and presenter, was blocked without any order being served on him. He had to approach the Bombay High Court for redress. In all these instances — there may be many more — a blocking order is not only confidential but also made in secret.
This court challenge is not isolated and there are regulatory proposals to increase government control over the internet. In a recently concluded public consultation to amend the Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, rather than cure deficiencies pointed out by cross-sectoral analysis, UN special rapporteurs and high courts, injuries to free expression and privacy are being reinforced. A draft of the amendments propose the appointment of a Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) as a government body that would hear appeals against the decisions of social media platforms to remove or not remove content. The draft amendments state that the GAC will be a government-appointed body but do not state whether this body will grant a right of hearing to content creators or even publish its orders.
There are several other concerns with the GAC. Firstly, the executive-constituted committee will make the central government (instead of, ideally, an independent judicial or a regulatory body) the arbiter of permissible speech on the internet. It would incentivise social media platforms to suppress any speech that may not be palatable to the government, public officials, or those who can exert political pressure. Secondly, it will empower the government to censor speech on grounds not stated under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000 or Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Hence, the government may even bypass the need to issue blocking orders, and instead, decide to crowdsource censorship.
While Twitter’s case may be painted as a Silicon Valley platform’s defiance of the Government of India, at the core of the legal issue is the freedom of speech and the future of Digital India.
The writer is Executive Director, Internet Freedom Foundation
The resignations of Rishi Sunak and Sajid Javid are likely to mark the beginning of the end for Boris Johnson’s premiership. Westminster is agog with speculation as Johnson reels from this latest setback. Summer may have come but the Tory government is not feeling the sunshine. At a time when voters face a cost of living crisis, the need for measured leadership could not be greater. Instead, the chaos unfolding within Downing Street risks becoming a distraction from the larger issues.
Even Johnson’s most ardent supporters will have to concede that his authority has been severely dented. No prime minister can brush aside losing a chancellor and a health secretary in one evening. The resignation letters penned by both men embody a growing unease felt across the country. Sunak noted that the public expected the government to be conducted “properly, competently and seriously”, standards that Johnson had failed to live up to. He also alluded to policy differences with Johnson that became impossible to bridge. Javid felt that the government was no longer seen as “competent in acting in the national interest”. Ultimately, both felt that a change in direction under Johnson was not possible.
“Events, dear boy, events” famously quipped Harold Macmillan when asked about a statesman’s greatest challenge. So it has turned out to be for Johnson. The PM’s supporters may be forgiven for wondering how quickly the public mood has turned against the man who secured a landmark general election victory and got Brexit done. But in politics, perception matters. Allegations of an extravagant Downing Street redecoration tainted Johnson. Matters were then compounded by a well-documented culture of lockdown rule-breaking in Downing Street.
Local elections in early May led to the Tories suffering significant losses. That said, a no-confidence motion against Johnson within the party did not succeed. Technically, he cannot be removed for a year unless the party changes the rules. But it is instructive to note that 148 Tory MPs failed to back him. Theresa May had greater support and she stepped down within six months of winning a no-confidence motion. Two key by-election losses to Labour and the Liberal Democrats have also underlined voter anger.
The economic circumstances remain perilous. The conflict in Ukraine has pushed energy prices up by more than 50 per cent with fuel poverty a real concern. Inflation is expected to touch 10 per cent this year — the highest in 30 years. The Office of Budget Responsibility has warned that real living standards can expect “their largest financial year fall on record”.
Where are the Tories headed? The answer seems to be rather confusing. A bid to court the working class Brexiteer voters has seen the party support greater taxation and spending policies. But the truth is that increased borrowing cannot be sustained forever. Nor is increasing taxation the answer. Incessant borrowing stands to pass debts on to the youth. And increasing taxation — even to support social care — risks choking off a recovery before it has begun. The irony is that fiscal conservatism and making the case for lower taxes — especially for the low paid — has all but been forgotten by a centre-right government. What is needed is not simply a change in leadership but a radical change in policy direction too.
What should the Tories look for in a reset then? First, restoring integrity at the core of government would be key to regaining public confidence. Second, championing economic freedom should be at the heart of any policy reboot. It is only through growth that a promise to “level up” forgotten areas of the country — the so called red wall — can be met. Importantly, the cost of transitioning to a green economy should not fall disproportionately on the least well-off. Alliances with like-minded democracies such as India will need to be cemented too.
None of this will be easy. But if the Tories seek to restore political credibility, they will have to be bold. While Britain has a conservative administration, it lacks truly conservative policies that can promote transformative change. Johnson has not been able to implement a cohesive plan. Instead, a corrosive mistrust of politicians has been sown. It is clear that Britain needs fresh leadership. Only then will the promise of “taking back control” have a genuine chance of being redeemed.
The writer is a London-based lawyer and political commentator
Not since the demise of the great Balraj Sahni in 1973 has this happened. Tarun Majumdar, a dedicated Marxist, had wished for his body to not be laid in state or covered by thick garlands. He did not want his funeral to be marked with a gun salute anywhere for people to come and pay their last respects. On Majumdar’s last journey, his body — which he wanted to donate for medical research — was wrapped with the Marxist-Communist red flag. Yet, not one of his films had hinted much at his political leanings. They were unadulterated, wholesome family entertainers with social messages subtly woven in.
The secret to his phenomenal success as a director, both in the mainstream arena and among lovers of “art” cinema, lay in his ability to bring his audience into his films, their stories and the characters fleshed out in them. One could identify with the stories that had a middle-class ethos with a sharp focus on the synthesis that sustained in joint families in Bengal — in the cities, suburbs and villages. The films narrated the lives, struggles, failures and successes of ordinary men, women and children, enriched with beautiful songs and music, mainly drawn from the creations of Rabindranath Tagore. Most of his films are inspired by the works of great litterateurs.
Among the memorable films in his large repertoire is Chaowa Pawa (1959) starring Uttam Kumar and Suchitra Sen which was directed by Yatrik, a group he had formed along with Dilip Mukherjee and Sachin Mukherjee. He directed two more films under the Yatrik banner, Kancher Swarga (1962) and Palatak (1963), before he went independent with Alor Pipasha (1965). Kancher Swargo, shot almost totally inside a studio-constructed hospital, dealt with a doctor who is faced with the ugly story of his medical past when he had gone wrong and was jailed.
The most memorable film in his entire oeuvre is Balika Badhu (1967) which saw the debut of the 14-year-old Moushumi Chatterjee in the title role and was later produced in Hindi by Shakti Samanta. The film is narrated through the voice-over of an elderly man who happened to be the teenage husband of the child bride many years ago. It is the story of the coming-of-age of the bride, who has no clue about the romantic and sexual side of marriage, with Chatterjee giving a fascinating performance.
Majumdar introduced some of the best talents in Bengali cinema and drew wonderful performances out of actors whose versatility had remained largely unexplored in other films. Perhaps the best example of this was his choice to cast Anup Kumar as the hero in two of his best films, Palatak and Nimantran (1971). The actor had always played comic roles but though Uttam Kumar had expressed a wish to play the lead in Palatak, Tarun Majumdar chose Anup. And what a performance came out of this choice! The three most talented actors Majumdar introduced are Tapas Pal, Moushumi Chatterjee and Sandhya Roy — he married Roy later, although the two separated after some time.
Music, especially Tagore’s compositions, assumed special significance in all of Majumdar’s films not only in terms of rendering but also in the way the songs were visualised and positioned within the narrative. His film Alo (2003), a massive box-office hit, with Rituparna Sengupta playing the title role, was adapted from a Bibhutibhushan Bandopadhyay story. The film, with seven beautifully rendered and imaginatively positioned Tagore songs, revived interest in Rabindra Sangeet. In Nimantran, another outstanding film which was also based on a Bandopadhyay story, Majumdar used Tagore’s ‘Purano Shei Diner Kawtha Bhulbi Ki Re Hai’ as the theme. Another Tagore song, ‘Doorey Kothai, Doorey Doorey’ was placed beautifully in a picnic sequence to establish the loneliness of a young girl. The film also uses Tagore’s famous poem, Nirjharer Swapno Bhango, recited without dramatic inflections by the hero, played by Anup Kumar, to express his free spirit when he first arrives in Bakulpur.
In Balika Badhu, the resident tutor for the kids, an old man, plays the tunes of Amar Shonar Bangla and Aami Tomay Bhalobashi on his violin. Later in the film, when the police arrive to arrest him, we discover that he was a terrorist in disguise and the significance of the tune is made clear. In his big hit Dadar Kirti, Majumdar uses a beautiful Tagore song — Chawrono Dhorite Diyogo Amaare, Niyona Niyona Shawraaye — sung by the nondescript hero to effectively bring across the climax without the use of a single line of dialogue. The same film begins with a scene from Tagore’s dance drama Chitrangada to introduce the heroine and set the pace of the film.
Majumdar was a director with his heart in the right place. During his last days, when he was very ill, on slips of paper he wrote about the new film he wanted to shoot. He wrote, “The film will be made.” The producer was ready. The recce was over. He was working on the script when he fell ill. He was 91.
The writer is a film scholar and critic
During a recent interview on ABC’s This Week, Senator Elizabeth Warren angrily declared that the US supreme court has “burned whatever legitimacy they still have. They just took the last of it and set a torch to it”. Strong words for a former professor of law at Harvard University. And not lightly spoken. For a serious and senior public personality to have used phrases such as the “legitimacy they still have” – implying thereby a recent history of legal abdication — and “set a torch to it”, offering us a graphic visualisation, almost vigilante-like, of the destruction of the court’s majesty, gives us the feeling that we are witnessing a constitutional crisis of significant proportions.
The crux of her statement revolves around the word “legitimacy”. A vibrant debate has emerged on the erosion of the legitimacy of the SCOTUS because of its spate of recent decisions. Legitimacy is a precious property. It must be carefully nurtured. Officers of the court must, therefore, be mindful of their loose comments when they deliver judgments. Such comments are read politically and can be very harmful. An opinion piece in The New York Times on June 29 referred to the warnings of “the Supreme Court’s declining institutional credibility [that] has wounded the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the law”, to quote Justice John Paul Stevens. Of course, both Senator Warren and the NYT were only talking about the US supreme court.
But this question of “declining legitimacy of a Supreme Court” is a concern of all democrats, even in India.
A brief survey of democracies shows us the centrality of this issue of a court’s autonomy. In Poland, for example, attempts by the Law and Justice party, to undermine the supreme court’s independence, and stuff it with loyalists, have resulted in the European Union warning the Polish government that its membership of the EU was at risk. The supreme court in Brazil regained some legitimacy when it struck down the changes framed to prosecute former President Lula by the crusading Judge Moro. They did this against the wishes of the incumbent government of Jair Bolsonaro. In the US, the recent flurry of decisions ranging from the overturning of the 50-year-old judgment of Roe versus Wade on the right to abortions to the affirmation of gun rights deriving from the Second Amendment, despite the horrific Uvalde shooting in Texas, to the striking down of a New York Law restricting the right to carry a gun publicly without “proper cause” or “good reason”, to limit the power of the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce greenhouse gases across states, even as the planet is on the brink of a climate catastrophe, has severely eroded the court’s legitimacy. This is a court that is being seen as committed to a certain conservative political ideology and not to the constitution. This is what has made Senator Warren so angry.
Supreme courts need to be vigilant about these threats to their “legitimacy”. They need to stand not just some distance away from the dynamics of political power, to avoid being pulled under by its eddies, but also some distance above these dynamics so that they can reflect on their privileged position and their sacred responsibility. The constitution is not just a paper document. It is a moral code for our times on which we must continuously reflect. It must govern our thought and behaviour. It must rule. Whatever may have been the journey of individual justices to the court, their arrival requires them to cut the cords that brought them there. Previous obligations need not be carried any further for they are now custodians of the constitution and not representatives of special interests. They carry no debt.
On this question of “legitimacy”, there are at least three aspects that any student of constitutional democracy must consider. The first is the court’s role in enforcing the core principle of “limited government”. The second is its recognition, and endorsement of the fundamental distinction between “rule of law” and “rule by law” — prepositions matter. And the third is its role as the promoter of “constitutional morality”. I offer these three responsibilities of the court since, I suspect, constitutional scholars in India may add a fourth, the “committed court”, which was a key dimension during the Emergency. It subsequently fell by the wayside.
The principle of “limited government”, the defining principle of any constitutional order, is based on the belief, borne out by history, that governments, even democratic ones, will always tend towards autocracy. When they do, because the executive controls the machinery of government and often tends to misuse it — particularly in situations when they dominate the other institutions of the state — the court must clip the executive’s wings. It must speak on behalf of the rights of the ordinary citizen. When the executive becomes tyrannical by legally harassing dissenters with false cases or arresting opponents, courts have the duty to call out this tyranny. They sometimes misread their role as implementers of government policy, which they are not. Their primary responsibility is to serve as checks against executive overreach. This important distinction is often lost on the court’s officers. It may not be a profound point that I am making here but it requires to be restated in these dark times of declining legitimacy.
The second is the crucial distinction between the “rule of law” and the “rule by law”. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “The rule of law is supposed to lift law above politics. The idea is that the law should stand above every powerful person and agency in the land. Rule by law, in contrast, connotes the instrumental use of the law as a tool of political power. It means that the state uses law to control its citizens but tries never to allow law to be used to control the state”. “Rule by law” allows the arbitrary exercise of power masquerading as the “rule of law”. Authoritarian regimes hide behind rule by law. That is why they seek to control the appointment of judges. By controlling the judiciary, regimes are able to shift the dispute from the domain of politics to the chambers of the courts. Ideological and partisan judgments then become more likely. This has been the long-term game plan of Senator Mitch McConnell who, in recent years, relentlessly campaigned for appointments to the US supreme court giving it its conservative turn.
The third is to see the court as a custodian of constitutional morality. As democracy spreads and colonises aspects of social and political life, the court must immediately enter the playing field and regulate this spread. It must remind politics of what is permitted and what is proscribed, especially since the dynamics of politics are driven by power and not by ethics. To our dismay, we saw this erosion of constitutional morality most clearly in the case of Fr Stan Swamy who was denied a straw, denied decent healthcare, and denied bail all in the name of “rule of law”. Across democracies worldwide, this masquerade of “rule by law” posing as “rule of law” has grown and needs to be consistently exposed. There is no room for complacency.
The writer is the DD Kosambi Visiting Professor at Goa University. He recently co-edited Companion to Indian Democracy: Resilience, Fragility, Ambivalence, Routledge, 2021. Views are personal.
The murder in Udaipur was a demonic act under the façade of religiosity. We no longer renounce the faith-fed intensity that endorses blood-curdling lynching and merciless killings. It appears that intolerant elements have made every attempt to challenge what has been held as an unpardonable offence. Perceived profanity often leads to confrontation between communities, and Muslims are frequently involved. Muslims find blasphemy an abominable act for which the offender must part with his life. This is a popular narrative but has hardly any Quranic validation and is not consistent with what the Prophet did in his lifetime.
Two widely respected public intellectuals and religious scholars of India, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan (1817-1898) and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (1888-1958) found that the punishment for blasphemy was not in conformity with the teachings of Islam. The thorny issue of blasphemy repeatedly surfaced in 19th and 20th-century India, and Sir Syed and Azad, known proponents of contrary political ideologies, tried to acquaint Muslims with credible Islamic laws dealing with the matter. They exhorted Muslims not to be carried away by emotions. Instead, they said, a cogently argued rejoinder to the profanity-filled books or remarks would be more effective.
In 1861, a civil servant and orientalist, William Muir (1819-1905), wrote a lengthy and contemptible book, The Life of Mahomet and the history of Islam to the era of Hegira. He analysed the pre-Islamic history of Arabia, Quranic revelations and the sayings of the Prophet and concluded that reforms could not take root in Muslim society. Long before Salman Rushdie, Muir talked about the reported satanic influences on the Prophet. The book’s publication led to vociferous protests. Sir Syed denounced the book for its intemperate language, countless historical mistakes and contradictions. However, he clarified that the Quran did not specify corporal punishment for such a deplorable act. One must not take vengeance on behalf of the Almighty or his messenger. The propagators of violent protest want Islam to be known as a religion that stands for bigotry, intolerance and ignorance.
Sir Syed made it a point to prepare a dispassionate rejoinder by zeroing in on the sources cited by Muir. In 1870, he visited England to consult books, manuscripts and other references extensively used by Muir. His erudite rebuttal, based on research spanning over eight years, went well beyond anger-filled polemics. Sir Syed cited several examples to highlight the Prophet’s compassionate outlook and unflinching moral and social commitment to a humane society. He also got the rejoinder translated into English. For Sir Syed, blasphemy does not call for violent and loud protest and requires nothing short of a rational rejoinder. It means one responds to books with books, words with words. Banning or burning books offers no solution (“kitab ka jawab kitab hai kitab jalana nahi”).
Many eminent Islamic jurists pointed out that after conquering Mecca, the Prophet gave complete protection to those who believed in the trinity. Quoting the widely revered scholar of Islamic jurisprudence Imam Abu Hanifa (702-772), noted Islamic thinker Arafat Manzar asserted that in the Islamic state, a Zimmi (protected non-Muslim) could live with polytheistic views and if he insults the Prophet, assassination is not the punishment as kufr (denying the oneness of God)is a bigger sin than writing or uttering something that defiles the Prophet.
Notably, desecrating the Prophet in the Islamic state was considered sedition as Islam was the state religion. Speaking against the state is sedition; hence reviling Islam or the Prophet was an anti-national activity. Muslim Caliphs succeeding the Prophet imposed capital punishment for blasphemy. This was meant for only Islamic states. The issue of blasphemy is to be settled by a country’s legal provisions.
In 1873, Bombay was rocked by a violent clash between Muslims and Parsis, following the publication of the translation of a Persian book allegedly full of disparaging remarks about the Prophet. Sir Syed responded to the situation by writing an editorial in his bilingual newspaper, the Aligarh Institute Gazette, and spelt out what caused communalism in India. For him, the real cause of communal clashes was the senseless remarks of one community against the other, and because mutual respect among religions had not taken firm roots in the country. Misperceptions and preconceived notions about the different religions could easily inflame the situation. The tendency to hurt the beliefs of others is grounded in the sense of religious superiority, which ran counter to the basic tenants of the faith. If the hatred and the ridicule-filled book is published, the offended community could either write back or seek constitutional remedy by seeking the government’s intervention. Sir Syed wrote: “One must not try to settle the issue by himself. The nasty books aimed at denouncing or despising other religions must not find their way; the government must enact stringent laws, and these texts are to be settled with the provisions of the sedition laws.”
When Swami Shraddhanand’s (1856-1926) book was published, Maulana Azad, who later became the country’s first education minister, vehemently insisted that Muslims should not try to punish the guilty without seeking remedies offered by the Constitution. Sir Syed and Azad’s judicious views on blasphemy are invested with the potential to solve the vexed issue that frequently surfaces in countries where many Muslims live. In India, they are of particular import.
The writer is a professor of mass communication at Aligarh Muslim University
BJP’s nomination of Draupadi Murmu as its candidate for the presidential election has stumped the opposition. Murmu is proving to be an inspired choice for BJP. Her candidature has left opposition parties uneasy because nearly every state has a significant Adivasi belt. With the community most influential in the central, eastern and northeast regions, it is the opposition parties in these belts feeling the heat most.
Mamata Banerjee who showed the greatest urgency and zeal to pitch a joint opposition candidate has all but given the short shift to her partyman and candidate Yashwant Sinha. Mamata has been left bemoaning that Murmu could have been a consensus choice had BJP meaningfully engaged with the opposition. With the Santhal tribe to which Murmu belongs an influential votebank in North Bengal, BJP, for months on the backfoot in Bengal, will be pleased at having scored a big political point over TMC.
Read also: How BJP’s choice is breaking whatever unity opposition has
Not surprisingly, Sinha reportedly won’t be visiting Bengal to canvas votes. The situation is no different in his home state Jharkhand where UPA ally JMM has announced support for Murmu. Even Uddhav Thackeray is finding it hard to drum up support for Sinha in his depleted camp. The outcome of the presidential election is now a foregone conclusion. BJP has yet again bested the opposition, and these parties will be more circumspect for the vice presidential election. Will there be a consensus or will the opposition wait this time for the BJP candidate before announcing a pick?
India’s civil aviation regulator DGCA issued a show cause notice to SpiceJet after reviewing a series of incidents reported from April 1 in aircrafts operated by it. The broad conclusions of the regulator are that the airline had poor internal safety oversight and inadequate maintenance. Consequently, there’s been a degradation in safety margin. There have been at least seven instances reported since May where there have been questions about SpiceJet. The worst day was July 5 when there were three instances, including one where a Delhi-Dubai flight had to be diverted to Karachi after a snag.
None of these problems have arisen overnight. There have been red flags for a while. In SpiceJet’s 2020-21 annual report, the auditor’s report came with qualifications. The auditor raised doubts about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Also, undisputed statutory dues such as PF and GST had not been regularly deposited. Financial stress inevitably leads to other compromises. DGCA, thereafter, conducted a financial assessment in September 2021. The finding showed that suppliers are not being paid regularly and that has led to a shortage of spares.
In March, GoI informed Rajya Sabha that there have been investigations into 49 air accidents since 2016. The findings showed that main reasons for accidents were failure on the part of the cockpit crew to stick to standard operating procedures, technical defects and factors related to the weather and ATC. DGCA primarily deals with safety issues. Its record has been mixed. In 2013-14, the US Federal Aviation Authority decided to downgrade Indian civil aviation from category I to category II after an audit brought out shortcomings in safety and maintenance. It had an adverse impact on the international plans of some Indian carriers. Since then, matters have improved and a recent US FAA audit reportedly went off well.
The regulator’s focus on safety has to be relentless – a Vistara flight yesterday experienced an engine snag. There’s a key international safey audit ahead. This one will be carried out by ICAO, a specialised UN agency that deals with air transport. In the last pre-pandemic year Indian aviation companies carried about 141 million passengers. That will be the baseline in a normal year. DGCA’s primary responsibility is to take timely action to make sure that Indian flyers are guaranteed safety standards that match the best. That requires being proactive when problems are at an incipient stage.
The confrontation between Chhattisgarh and UP police is just as dangerous and ridiculous as all such face-offs. Some are arguing that unlike the Punjab police’s attempted arrest of BJP leader Tajinder Bagga that was foiled by Haryana and Delhi police, the Chhattisgarh police had a magistrate’s warrant to arrest a TV journalist – the offence in question being the airing of a ‘misleading’ video of Rahul Gandhi. But just as in Bagga’s case, the visiting police team hadn’t informed counterparts in the destination state. Not surprisingly, and in a repeat of past actions by BJP state governments, another Congress-ruled state, Rajasthan, has also booked the journalist.
The real trouble is of course extreme politicisation of policing. Multiple FIRs are lodged in states over causes dear to the party that runs the government and accused persons get “lucky” only if they happen to live in a state governed by a rival party. The TV journalist had a BJP-governed state police’s backing, but Jignesh Mewani in Gujarat didn’t have that when the Assam police came calling. Neither did pharmacy student Nikhil Bhamre or Marathi actor Ketaki Citale when the Maharashtra police, then “loyal” to MVA, jailed them for “anti-Sharad Pawar” tweets.
That police forces should get so brazenly busy doing the petty bidding of their political masters and that this should lead to regular confrontations may be considered par for the course by our politicians but at least the Supreme Court should not remain indifferent. The Criminal Procedure Code isn’t specific enough on inter-state arrests and SC must issue binding guidelines. Except when nabbing terrorists, out-of-state police teams must possess arrest warrants from the jurisdictional magistrate, inform the local police, and secure transit remand from the local magistrate. SC should also note that multiple FIRs for the same cause of action continue despite the court terming it an “abuse of process”. That SC seemed to veer from its own path in the Nupur Sharma hearings doesn’t change the argument.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has launched transient measures to arrest capital flight that is trimming foreign exchange reserves, as the central bank slows the rupee's descent against the dollar. RBI is allowing banks to tap into remittances that swell during the festive season.
It is encouraging foreign portfolio investors to buy more government and corporate debt. The central bank is also allowing Indian companies to borrow more abroad. These are supplementary to the RBI intervention in the foreign exchange market that has kept the rupee overvalued against a basket of currencies of its principal trading partners. The rupee has gained against hard currencies like the euro and the yen, as well as against the managed float renminbi, since the beginning of this year.
At current levels of the rupee, the RBI's intervention in the forex market has been designed to track fundamentals. This is expected to continue as portfolio capital flows out on monetary normalisation by the US Federal Reserve and India's trade deficit widens on dearer oil.
The effects of a hard landing of the US economy are beginning to show up in a softening of global energy prices and the rupee is likely to drift down gently. India's current account and forex reserves are in much better shape now than during the previous episode of capital flight following the global financial meltdown.
The effects of this week's capital control relaxations would depend on how attractive Indian banks make their foreign currency deposits, appetite for emerging market debt and corporate demand for foreign loans. The measures seem to hold more promise in the medium term than immediately, because banks have limited scope to increase the interest rate differential on dollar deposits, portfolio investors are risk averse as the gap between the US and Indian policy rates narrows, and companies are awaiting a public investment push to resume capital expenditure. The central bank has used a tested method of reversing capital flows, and these will take some pressure off the rupee.
( Originally published on Jul 07, 2022 )<
Read in source website
Averting, minimising and addressing the crises of climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss must be central to India's economic plans. Which is why the Supreme Court's recent concerns about the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the quasi-judicial body equipped to arbitrate these issues, are pertinent.
These are overlooked in the NITI Aayog report on the economic impact of environment-related court rulings. It focuses solely on first-order economic impacts with no consideration of the economic and non-economic values of nature and ecosystem services. It is evident from the report that a robust clearance process could have avoided these 'costs' and ensured environmental integrity.
Changes in clearance processes have focused on timelines and minimising delays and rent-seeking to enhance economic activity. Not addressing the infirmities in implementation - lack of proper environmental and social assessments, public hearings and engagement with stakeholders - meant missing an important input in decision-making, resulting in increased judicial recourse.
The Supreme Court has stepped in time and again to make up for the executive's inability to address environmental issues, such as pollution. This is not an optimum solution, as this is beyond the court's remit and competence, which is determining compliance with the law.
A properly staffed NGT will be able to serve as a judicial arbitrator when required. Rather than pushing the courts to take on more and make up for executive and regulatory deficiencies, the focus must be on ensuring processes that accord due importance to environmental integrity, needs of the local population, and puts an economic value on ecosystem services. This will ensure economic growth that is also sustainable.
Read in source website
For one of the greatest survivors in world politics, the end has come swiftly. United Kingdom (UK) Prime Minister (PM) Boris Johnson has been swept away by a tide of resignations from his government. What started as a trickle on Tuesday, with the quitting of cabinet ministers Sajid Javid and Rishi Sunak turned into a veritable deluge, with more than 50 ministers and aides stepping down over the next two days. At the heart of it all was Mr Johnson’s disastrous handling of the case of former deputy chief whip Chris Pincher, the lawmaker who stepped down after facing serious charges of sexual misconduct. That this came so close on the heels of “partygate”, a scandal over parties at 10 Downing Street amid the Covid-19 lockdown, and revelations that Mr Johnson had been aware of similar allegations against Mr Pincher in the past, made his position untenable.
Given British parliamentary tradition, perhaps the most surprising part was how doggedly Mr Johnson sought to cling to his position amid calls from within his Conservative Party to quit, before deciding on Thursday to resign and stay on as caretaker PM till October, when the party will choose a new leader at an annual conference. But Mr Johnson’s problems are far from over, with Tory Members of Parliament still demanding his immediate eviction from office. The political turmoil couldn’t have come at a worse time for Britain, facing challenges of rising cost of living brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic, and the war in Ukraine, the worst conflict in Europe since the end of World War II. There are also issues such as the dispute over the Northern Ireland Protocol, the post-Brexit trade arrangement with widespread ramifications for stability in the region, and fresh calls for a referendum on Scotland’s independence.
Despite winning a landslide victory less than three years ago, Mr Johnson has appeared to be an accidental PM. He did, however, set a lot of stock in strengthening relations with India as part of his promise to forge a “new Britain”. These efforts included a pledge to finalise an India-UK free trade agreement by October and closer ties in defence and security. Clearly, the focus will now shift the UK’s domestic politics and it may be some time before Britain can get back to the all-important task of bolstering its position outside the European Union. But India-UK ties are on a stable footing with institutional and deep-rooted support; whoever emerges out of the churn left in the wake of Mr Johnson’s exit is unlikely to reverse that progress.
When the contours of the Republic were being chiselled in the Constituent Assembly, the framers of the Constitution felt there was a need for the House of Elders to have members who were not beholden to a political party, but could contribute to the national debate by the dint of their expertise in specific fields. From this deliberation was born the nominated member, 12 in number who would be drawn from a bouquet of professions. The first set of members who came into the Rajya Sabha reflected this goal of elevating the debate in the Upper House, which was meant as a chamber to check the immediate priorities of the Lok Sabha, inject nuance, perspective, and deliberation into the lawmaking process, and raise issues that may not have urgent electoral ramifications.
Nominated members represented an honour and a promise — of crafting a more aspirational Republic, raising issues that, as domain experts, only they could. Though increased politicisation, institutional neglect, and individual apathy sometimes dulled the shine of the nomination, being a nominated member remains a solemn calling and a duty.
This week, legendary music director Ilaiyaraaja, athlete PT Usha, film screenwriter V Vijayendra Prasad, and spiritual leader Veerendra Heggade, were named as nominated members to the Upper House. It’s a southern push by the Bharatiya Janata Party that has been unable to establish a beachhead in the region beyond Karnataka. But an important task awaits them — to uphold the prestige of the high office they’re about to ascend to. May they be successful in fostering a culture of respectful and deliberative lawmaking.
In 2018, when India hosted World Environment Day on the theme Beat Plastic Pollution, Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi gave a call for eliminating single-use plastics (SUP). A year later, in his Independence Day speech, PM Modi raised the issue again and said, “Can we free India from single-use plastic? The time for implementing such an idea has come. May teams be mobilised to work in this direction... Shopkeepers should sell jute and cloth bags. Customers should adopt ways to reduce plastic usage. We must also put technologies in use to abolish plastic usage.”
There are very good reasons to stop using plastics. They harm the environment as well as the health of the people. Only a minuscule amount of plastics is recycled or destroyed in waste-to-energy facilities. Most end up in landfills, where they can take up to 1,000-plus years to decompose. Worse, plastics release toxic substances that leach into the soil and water. As they decompose, plastic breaks down into tiny pieces that eventually become microplastics. Newer research shows the presence of microplastics in soils, freshwater, and even the air we breathe. This is a matter of grave concern.
India’s call to eliminate SUPs provided momentum, leading to significant action on plastic pollution around the globe. This culminated in the historic adoption of ‘End Plastic Pollution: Towards an internationally legally binding instrument’ at the United Nations (UN) Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, in March. The UN Environment Program’s executive director, Inger Andersen, called the agreement the most critical international multilateral environmental deal since the Paris climate accord.
In India, the ban on SUPs began on July 1. The ministry of environment, forest and climate change (MoEF) has also notified guidelines on the extended producer responsibility (EPR) for plastic packaging. The enforceable prescription of a minimum level of recycling of plastic packaging waste, collected under EPR by producers, importers, and brand owners, will strengthen the circular economy of plastic packaging waste. The EPR guidelines will also promote the development of new alternatives and give a push to sustainable plastic packaging.
The guidelines also mandate the use of recycled plastic content in packaging. The step will generate demand for recycled plastic material. Questions have been raised on alternatives. The Modi government believes that development should not come at the cost of the environment, and efforts to save the environment should not halt development. With that basic principle in mind and PM Modi’s call for Lifestyle for the Environment (LiFE), MoEF organised a national-level exhibition on alternatives to raise awareness. The states and Union territories (UTs) have been asked to organise similar fairs and provide incentives for an accelerated penetration of SUP alternatives.
A provisional standard on biodegradable plastic has been notified. The ministry of micro, small and medium enterprises (MSME) has made a provision in central government schemes to support MSME units manufacturing alternatives. States and UTs have also been asked to provide incentives to accelerate the penetration of SUP alternatives. MoEF is working with the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade to take forward innovative ideas on alternatives under the StartUp India Scheme.
The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has issued one-time certificates to around 200 manufacturers of compostable plastic. In line with the Modi government’s ease of doing business policy, the certificates do not require renewal. An online portal has been developed to facilitate the certification of these manufacturers. To support MSMEs, CPCB in association with the Central Institute of Petrochemicals Engineering & Technology (CIPET) is organising workshops for MSMEs to transition to SUP alternatives. Directions have been issued to e-commerce companies, leading sellers/users, and plastic raw material manufacturers on the ban. But the bid to save the environment can never achieve its desired results without janbhagidari (people’s participation). To encourage citizens, awareness drives are underway.
CPCB has also undertaken comprehensive measures to make the SUP ban successful. Its Comprehensive Action Plan includes measures to reduce the supply of raw materials and plastic demand, roll out digital interventions for efficient monitoring and creating awareness and guidance to state boards for effective implementation of directions. The National Dashboard on Elimination of Single-Use Plastic and Plastic Waste Management has also been set up to monitor the implementation of the plan.
The ban is a significant step towards building a sustainable planet we can proudly hand over to the next generation. We can eliminate SUPs from our daily lives with everyone’s participation and combined efforts. Living by the PM’s vision of LiFE and adopting environmentally friendly alternatives are the only ways to build a sustainable future.
Bhupender Yadav is Union Cabinet minister for environment, forest & climate change; and labour & employment. He is the author of The Rise of the BJP
The views expressed are personal
During the Uttar Pradesh (UP) elections earlier this year, as I travelled through the hinterland, I interviewed an old Dalit man, asking him who he intended to vote for. Pat came the answer - Narendra Modi. The reason, I enquired. His one-word answer was “vikas” (development). The exchange encapsulated the Prime Minister’s (PM) push to forge a personal connection with India’s Dalit communities through a politics of patronage and empowerment.
Over the past month, we’ve seen another form of politics emerge, with the nomination of former Jharkhand governor Droupadi Murmu, a tribal woman leader, as the National Democratic Alliance’s (NDA) presidential candidate. To understand the motivation and rationale behind this decision, we have to look back.
In his eight years at the helm of India’s administration, PM Modi has crafted an image of a man obsessed with development. He is not the first leader to build his image. India’s first PM, Jawaharlal Nehru, carried an aura of being the independent nation’s founding PM, but Modi is the most successful politician in a generation – which included leaders such as PV Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh, who both steered the country through thorny social and economic periods, but were unable to create an image that galvanised the grassroots – to use his governmental work to build his image as a developmentalist.
How did he achieve this? Unlike his early years as Gujarat chief minister (CM), as PM, Modi moved away from modern notions of a developmentalist who wields power, and instead moulded himself in the image of Indian traditional spiritual leaders with little ties with material benefits. At the same time, his government aggressively redistributed power and patronage among underprivileged communities, creating a pool of trust among communities.
A key element was the crafting of aspirations among communities. Modi’s government focused on changing the material realities of the poor by building toilets and houses, providing electricity and ration, and by 2024, piped water.
Yes, there were electoral considerations, but the welfare delivery also represented a tangible transformation in the lives of people who had lived through several administrations with no tangible change. A team of efficient ministers, politicians and bureaucrats helped subsume the political imperative in the symbolic change the government was bringing in the lives of the people.
Over the years, the Congress and a raft of regional leaders – such as Nitish Kumar, Naveen Patnaik and Mamata Banerjee – made efforts to create the image of developmentalists. But the 2019 election campaign showed that the Congress’s ideas remain stuck in large statist programmes, and the CMs, while successful in controlling their images, were hurt by region-specific idiosyncrasies in their appeal.
Two of the biggest challenges to Modi’s image, hence, came from unlikely sources – one, the 2016 decision to invalidate high-value banknotes, and another, the sweeping protests in 2021 against three farm laws.
In the first, the PM invested his considerable political capital to pivot the discourse to the poorest, the most marginalised, and forging connections with them. In the second, his political savvy in taking back the laws ensured that the damage was temporary and limited to some regions and communities.
It is against this backdrop that the recent nomination of Murmu must be seen. There is, of course, a political imperative. Tribals are of immense ideological and cultural importance to Hindutva – the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has worked among adivasis for decades, trying to thwart what they see as attempts to convert these groups.
Moreover, in the central Indian tribal heartland, the Adivasi is still not a core BJP supporter but remains impoverished with poor access to the government machinery or welfare – and therefore, a prime target for the PM’s development pitch.
But beyond the electoral realm, there is also the symbolic – and that is, for the first time in independent India, a tribal woman is set to ascend to the highest office in the land and be the country’s first citizen. This is not only a moment of symbolic inclusion but also one of historic significance, one that not only has never happened before, but has never been attempted before.
With this move, the politics of development is about to enter the next stage.
Badri Narayan is director, Govind Ballabh Pant Social Science Institute, Prayagraj
The views expressed are personal
In a rare development, social media company Twitter has challenged various central government orders directing the take-down of politically sensitive content on its platform before the Karnataka High Court. It has argued that the blocking orders substantively violated the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression; procedurally violated provisions of Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act and the Blocking Rules by not providing a hearing to content creators and authors of tweets; and require prior judicial review.
Twitter’s decision to go to court is important for many reasons. For one, it is uniquely positioned to challenge government blocking orders. Blocking orders are secret by design — even for authors whose tweets are being withheld or account owners whose accounts are being disabled. This is because of the government’s interpretation of Rule 16 of the Blocking Rules, which sees it regularly reject Right to Information (RTI) requests filed by owners or content creators, seeking a copy of the blocking order directing the take-down of their tweets. These creators are left with no choice but to go through an arduous legal process to first try and secure a copy of the blocking order and then challenge it. This is a time consuming and expensive process, especially for individual litigants, and has mostly proved unsuccessful or ineffective.
Unlike authors or content creators, social media companies such as Twitter are often the only entities that have access to blocking orders issued by the government (although they are prohibited from publicly disclosing the content of the orders due to statutory confidentiality requirements). Such vast access allows them to make sense of the type of content that is regularly flagged by the government to be withheld, and understand the pattern of the government’s decision-making process over the long-term. Thus, Twitter’s challenge in the Karnataka HC is an important step in protecting the freedom of speech and expression of its users in India and in promoting transparency around executive action.
Twitter’s request for judicial review is also important given that across our statutory framework – whether in directing surveillance, ordering an internet shutdown, or flagging content to be taken down – there is no independent inter-branch oversight. Under the Blocking Rules, an inter-ministerial committee, composed exclusively of government officials, takes the final call on what content has to be withheld or taken down. The recently amended Information Technology Rules 2021, which regulate digital news media, also suffer from an exclusive government oversight mechanism, which has been challenged before multiple HCs for facilitating government control of the media and encouraging censorship.
The absence of any accountability in the form of judicial scrutiny endangers the rule of law and skews the separation of power between the executive and the judiciary. Judicial oversight offers the best guarantee of independence, impartiality, and proper procedure, and will be vital in curbing any misuse of the government’s blocking powers. The Karnataka HC’s ruling on the need for judicial oversight will have a significant impact on the ongoing legal challenges to India’s surveillance regime and the IT Rules, 2021, and in protecting our free speech online.
Many people have framed Twitter’s decision to approach the Karnataka HC as an illustration of a multinational company’s brazen attitude and refusal to comply with local laws. However, it bears mentioning that the ability to challenge a government action before a court is the hallmark of a democracy bound by the rule of law. Until the HC decides its petition or passes an interim order, Twitter is bound to follow all government blocking orders, while still retaining its right to challenge them.
There is no doubt that social media companies often function with a lack of accountability and transparency themselves and privacy concerns (especially around data collection and use) against non-State actors are important. Platform regulation is thus necessary, while being rights-respecting. However, the relationship between a user and a social media platform is controlled by consent and choice, even if illusory. In contrast, the State enjoys greater control over its citizens’ lives and has a monopoly over power and violence, whether in its decision to exercise police powers, prosecute individuals, or block content.
When the government directs the take-down of Twitter content or disabling certain Twitter handles that it deems unpalatable or illegal – such as for posting tweets relating to the 2021 farmers’ protest or the Covid-19 pandemic, or from certain political handles – it effectively serves as a censor of the web.
Twitter’s recent challenge seems to be predicated on receiving blocking orders for tweets or accounts belonging to activists, journalists, and political parties. The challenge before the Karnataka HC thus presents a rare opportunity for the judiciary to review and curb the arbitrary exercise of powers exercised by the government under Section 69A of the IT Act. Its decision will impact the freedom and free flow of information online. And, that is why we should care.
Vrinda Bhandari is a lawyer practising in Delhi
The views expressed are personal
The British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has shown himself to be a master of political survival with a Houdini-like ability to get out of every situation that triggered calls for his head. As a string of scandals scarring his government got stretched in his protecting an MP who had admitted to excessive drinking and sexual misconduct at a party, it appeared it was one scandal too far. As two of his top ministers handed in their resignations within minutes of each other on Tuesday, more “Go Boris”, “Bye Boris” moments seem to have arrived, this time around with a ring of seeming finality.
In keeping with his record of standing up to challenges to his office, Mr Johnson moved swiftly to gather the remainder of his Cabinet behind him even as he announced replacements for his chancellor Rishi Sunak and his health minister Sajid Javid, both seen as potential challengers. Having conjured up a 59 per cent majority in the last confidence vote of the Tory party, Johnson stays ensconced just as those opposed to him are gathering forces, intent upon changing the rules of the 1922 Committee that bar another confidence vote for a year at least.
There are sections within his party who blame him, and not without basis, for his government’s mishandling the fallout of each problem, beginning with the “Patygate” scandal in which he became the first British PM to be fined, one among 125 such fines handed down for breach of Covid protocols in lockdown-breaking parties. A similar vein of dissembling first to cover up and then admit and later apologise was visible in his government’s actions in the wake of a second successive major scandal, this involving the MP Chris Pincher.
What is different now is that there is considerably greater discontent on the Tory backbenchers after clear political warnings of how the public views the party came in two stinging by-election defeats in Wakefield and Tiverton & Honiton. Also, Conservative Party chairman Oliver Dowden resigned while Mr Javid and Mr Sunak parted after casting aspersions on the government’s integrity as well as the manner of its working through every crisis point.
The key to the problems plaguing Mr Johnson’s government may lie in his own personality as he sets the tone for behaviour. With such a colourful personal life, can the Prime Minister reprimand anyone in his party who behaves inappropriately? And yet it was his personality more than his policies that catapulted him to the head of the party. As the loudest Brexiteer at an inflection point in European history, his politics was seen as credible enough for Mr Johnson to have led the Tories to their biggest electoral victory since the time of Margaret Thatcher.
The question is whether the Tories will even attempt to go into the next general election under his leadership when all the signs seem to point to its perils. British bookmakers, who fancy themselves to be as well-informed as weathercocks, have made the former defence secretary, Penny Mordaunt, Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss the first three favourites though the Tory party members seem to favour the current defence secretary, Ben Wallace.
Whether by design or chance, Mr Johnson has managed to stay afloat because the succession question was always hanging fire with no major figure emerging from within his party as a clear rival. A flurry of departures, with a total of 21 resignations including those of two more ministers striking the party in less than a day is indicative of a split that cannot be forded now as “trust, truth and integrity” seem to have been eroded in the three years under the journalist-turned-politician Boris Johnson.
The world has come to terms with being routinely assailed by post-truths, fake news and “WhatsApp universities” that peddle them. The global right-wing is known to be their beneficiary as well as their source and promoter.
The latest offender, however, is a leading TV channel. It aired a misleading video of former Congress president Rahul Gandhi. BJP leaders, including three MPs and an MLA, shared it. The video is of Mr Gandhi saying post an attack by activists of the Students’ Federation of India on his office in his constituency, Wayanad, in Kerala that he bears no ill will towards the “children”. The video, however, made it out as if Mr Gandhi were referring to the terrorists who beheaded a tailor in Udaipur for his social media support to suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma who had allegedly slighted the name of Prophet Muhammad.
When the Congress realised the damaging potential of such a video, it brought it to the notice of the BJP leadership seeking an early stoppage of the circulation of the same, but to no avail. It was shocking indeed that among those who tweeted the video was BJP MP Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore, who handled the information and broadcasting ministry in the first edition of the Narendra Modi government. The Congress has now filed an FIR against the perpetrators of the fraud. Yet the drama that the Uttar Pradesh police staged by whisking away the TV anchor who aired the video first when the Chhattisgarh police came for him was only part of a grand charade.
Democracy functions through institutions and political parties run two of the most important such institutions — the legislature and the executive. It will be tough in today’s India for a political party to pass the “Karatmeter test” but there should be some respect for the basic tenets of democratic functioning.
Parties must stop at least its public faces from resorting to such ignoble practices. They must remember that fake news will be passé one day but democracy will survive still.