In the early hours of April 21, a fleet of bulldozers accompanied by hundreds of policemen descended on Jahangirpuri in northwest Delhi to demolish buildings, petty shops, and the entrance gate of a mosque. Soon after the demolitions started, the Supreme Court in an urgent hearing ordered that “status quo” be maintained until further orders, but the demolition continued for over an hour after the order was passed.
The demolition drive was initiated after the Delhi BJP chief Adesh Gupta wrote to North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) to demolish the “illegal constructions” of the rioters in Jahangirpuri. Communal violence had broken out in the area on April 16 when a Hanuman Jayanti Shobha Yatra, which did not have police permission, clashed with Muslims as it went alongside the mosque. This comes on the heels of other incidents, in Khargone in Madhya Pradesh and Khambhat in Gujarat, where processions during Ram Navami led to communal flare-ups, which were followed by the state-directed demolition of homes of the alleged rioters.
The actions of state and local authorities to bulldoze shops and homes in riot-hit Muslim neighbourhoods citing “illegal encroachment” raises major legal concerns. At one level, such actions show a blatant disregard for the due process of law and established judicial precedents regarding evictions. At another level, it conveys the cynical use of brute state power for collective punishment undermining the basic tenets of criminal law.
“Illegal encroachments”
The statement of the NDMC that the demolition was a part of a drive against “illegal encroachments” seems to be a legal smokescreen for its more insidious action. The binary of legal and illegal settlements has very little meaning in Delhi, and much of urban India, since a majority of urban residents live on the margins of legality. According to the Delhi Economic Survey 2008-09, only about 24% of the city lived in “planned colonies” and the rest lived in informal or unplanned areas ranging fromjhuggi jhopdi clusters to unauthorised colonies. The Draft Master Plan of Delhi, 2041 also acknowledges the informality that characterises Delhi when it states that such unplanned areas have “emerged as high density, mix-use hubs, providing affordable options for housing, micro, small and medium enterprises”.
Within the web of such urban informality, people make claims over property through various legal, political, and documentary means. Since the 1970s, there have been many waves of regularisation of “unauthorised colonies” initiated by the state. In the run-up to the Delhi Assembly elections in 2020, the Union Government launched the PM-UDAY (Unauthorised Colonies in Delhi Awas Adhikar Yojana) scheme which confers property rights to residents of unauthorised colonies.
Irrespective of the legal status of the settlement, no public authority can demolish buildings without giving the affected parties a chance to be heard. Neither the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 nor the Delhi Development Act, 1957 allows any authority to demolish a permanent building without serving advance notice. Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which allows the corporation to order the demolition of buildings, has a proviso which states that “no order of demolition shall be made” unless a notice is served to give the affected person “a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such order shall not be made”.
Protection against eviction
Beyond the principles of natural justice, the judiciary has further strengthened the rights of residents against eviction. InAjay Maken vs Union of India (2019), a case concerning the legality of the demolition of Shakur Basti, the Delhi High Court held that no authority shall carry out eviction without conducting a survey, consulting the population that it seeks to evict and providing adequate rehabilitation for those eligible. Invoking the idea of the “Right to the City” and the “Right to Adequate Housing” from international law, the court held that slum-dwellers possess the right to housing and should be protected from forced and unannounced eviction. The Delhi High Court had earlier inSudama Singh vs Government of Delhi (2010), mandated that the state should comply with fair procedure before undertaking any eviction which got further crystalised in the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015.
Drawing from judgments in South Africa, the Delhi High Court in Ajay Maken case held that any person who is to be evicted should have a right to “meaningful engagement” with relocation plans. InOccupiers of 51 Olivia Road ,Berea Township vs City of Johannesburg, the Constitutional Court of South Africa had held that public authorities should engage meaningfully and in good faith with the affected groups and the Court facilitated an agreement that ensured affordable and safe accommodation for the occupiers. In the case of Ajay Maken too, the final judgment was given only after a Draft Protocol for rehabilitation was drawn up after consultative engagements with stakeholders, including the Shakur Basti residents. Given these precedents, before a public authority undertakes any action in Jahangirpuri, it should not only serve notice but also consult those that it seeks to evict.
Rule of the bulldozer state
The demolition of homes and shops of alleged culprits of communal riots portends the establishment of a perilous bulldozer state that dispenses vengeful majoritarian justice. Before taking any punitive action, every accused has to be given a fair trial where both parties provide evidence, and the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed a crime. But under the new rule of the bulldozer state, even before any charges are framed, the executive rather than the judiciary arbitrarily imposes a form of collective punishment upon a whole neighbourhood. The state speaks with a forked tongue, claiming that the action is against illegal encroachment while communicating to their intended audience that it was a retributive action.
The bulldozer itself has now become a symbol of brute state power and a revolting mascot to intimidate minorities. The demolition activities seem to be purposefully done under full media glare to convey the unbridled power of the bulldozer state. Worryingly, the new rule of the bulldozer state seems to have some level of public endorsement as the old rule of law takes a back seat. In the midst of such a majoritarian upsurge from the state and society, the rule of law cannot be saved purely through judicial intervention and would need broader political struggles that challenge India’s seemingly inexorable descent into tyranny.
Mathew Idiculla is a legal consultant on urban issues and a visiting faculty at Azim Premji University, Bengaluru
When the Communist Party of China (CPC) held its annual Central Economic Work Conference in December last year, the watchword was “stability”. This was reiterated with even greater emphasis at the March 2022 sessions of the National People’s Congress (NPC) and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC).
Path to a review
Later in autumn this year, the CPC will convene its 20th national Party Congress which will see a major turnover in leadership positions. There will be a review of the trajectory towards the realisation of the “China Dream” — the rejuvenation of China, its emergence as a fully developed modern and powerful nation and occupying the very centre of a transformed international order. The target year is 2049, marking the 100th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic and, therefore, of considerable symbolic significance.
It is also anticipated that President Xi Jinping will retain his party, state and military leadership positions beyond the 10-year tenure informally observed for party leadership positions, in line with the reforms instituted by Deng Xiaoping. This was in the wake of the immense damage to the party and the country unleashed by the then Party Chairman Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). The Constitution of China was amended to allow only two five-year tenures to the head of state The objective was to restore the principle of collective leadership and ensure predictable leadership transitions and prevent a cult of personality developing around an ambitious individual leader. The Constitution has now been amended again to permit the President to serve beyond a 10-year term and, in theory, indefinitely for life. The Party has no fixed term of office for the Party General Secretary; only an informal norm is in place. In staying on in this position, Xi Jinping will not be violating any party statute.
On Xi Jinping’s tenure
The 20th Party Congress is important because it is expected to endorse the continuance of Mr. Xi as China’s top leader. The question is whether he will only get another five-year term or be assured his leadership position for life. The latter will signify that his power is unassailable for the present. A limited extension would indicate that there is opposition in the CPC to his assumption of leadership for life. For other leadership positions, the informal age limit of 68 years has been generally observed even during Mr. Xi’s tenure.
The current Premier, Li Keqiang, recently announced at a press conference that he would leave office later this year having completed his 10-year tenure. If the informal age limits are observed, then as many as 11 of the 25 members of the Politburo and two of the seven members of the Politburo Standing Committee would have to retire at the 20th Party Congress. The appointments to these top positions, including the naming of a new Premier, will give the world an indication of both Xi Jinping’s political influence as well as the orientation of China’s domestic and external policies over the next phase of China’s journey towards the realisation of the “China Dream”.
Stability implies a predictable and carefully choreographed outcome to the Party Congress. There should neither be “black swans” nor “grey rhinos” — both signifying unexpected crises — to upset the apple cart. By now, it is clear that no such smooth passage to a celebratory 20th Congress will be possible. In his Work Report to the NPC, Premier Li Keqiang acknowledged: “A comprehensive analysis of evolving dynamics at home and abroad indicates that this year[,] the risks and challenges for development rise significantly and we must keep pushing to overcome them.”
A buffeted economy
Domestic risks have multiplied as the economy continues to slow down and is being buffeted by severe lockdowns in major cities, disrupting ordinary lives, dislocating production schedules, causing supply chain interruptions and leading to widespread public anger and protests. The case of Shanghai, China’s premier industrial and commercial hub and the world’s largest container terminal, is of particular concern. The images of ordinary citizens battling public health workers, people begging for food and medical help and generally expressing anger at a government immune to their suffering do not bode well for social stability.
And yet, Mr. Xi has publicly defended the very stringent lockdowns. There is a barely concealed controversy within the party leadership over whether such severe measures are necessary. The current Party Secretary of Shanghai, Li Qiang, is reputed to be close to Mr. Xi, but may be in the doghouse for having failed to check the spread of the infection in the city. He was rumoured to be in line to be appointed Premier later in the year. This may have become a casualty of COVID-19.
The Chinese economy was on a slower trajectory even before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the pervasive disruptions that it spawned not only in China but across the world. The “decoupling” of China’s economy from the United States, at least in the high-tech and sensitive sectors, has been a challenge. But Mr. Xi himself attempted to reorient China’s economic direction by several key decisions.
One, he tried to bring to heel China’s hugely successful and profitable (and politically influential) privately held commercial multinationals such as Alibaba, WeChat and DiDi Chuxing, all in the tech platform category, by introducing several new and strict regulations, especially in the area of data security. Their foreign operations have been brought under close scrutiny and regulation. As a result, nearly U.S.$1.7 trillion of their market capitalisation has been wiped out, which would have been treated as an economic disaster in any other major economy.
Two, he has hit China’s large and expanding property market with similar strict regulatory measures resulting in the near bankruptcy of some of the largest property firms in the country, including Evergrande, which has a huge exposure of U.S.$300 billion. The property sector constitutes around 30% of China’s GDP. Chinese banks have made 30% of their loans to housing construction and 60% of all bank loans are backed by property as collateral. In urban areas, 60% of employment is construction related. Therefore, the cascading effect of a property meltdown throughout the economy can only be imagined.
There is another serious vulnerability related to local government financing vehicles (LGFV) which are floated by local governments and municipalities to finance infrastructure and real estate development. The outstandings on this score have gone from U.S.$2.3 trillion in 2013 to $8 trillion at the end of 2020. They are probably even larger today. This is nearly 50% of China’s GDP and constitutes an economic vulnerability which is not very visible.
The Ukraine war
The big uncertainty for China is the fallout from Russia’s Ukraine war. Whatever be the eventual outcome, Russia has lost the war even if it continues to win several more battles. One cannot see how reducing Ukraine to virtual rubble can constitute a victory in any practical sense. More importantly, whatever the outcome, Russia will continue to be unplugged from the global trade and financial system still dominated by the West. Western sanctions on Russia will continue and may become even more stringent than they already are.
China has condemned sanctions in general but is compelled to observe those whose violation will expose its own firms to secondary sanctions. There are limits to China’s “no-limits” cooperation with Russia. On balance, the Russian misadventure in Ukraine has exposed China to greater vulnerability in its external relations. The strengthening of the U.S.-led western alliance, the revival of European unity and the renewed narrative of “democracy vs autocracy” implies that Chinese expectations of a steady march towards the “China Dream” may be belied. Certainly, the prospect of Taiwan returning to the Chinese fold, which is an indispensable component of the “China Dream”, may have receded for the time being.
Xi Jinping’s position may have weakened but it is unlikely that he will face a serious leadership challenge at the Congress. In an earlier commentary made soon after the release of the landmark Sino-Russian Joint Statement of February 4, 2022, I had said that China had done a Russia on the U.S. just as, in 1972, with U.S. President Richard Nixon’s visit to China, the U.S. had done a China on Russia. This latter day gambit appears to have failed. To that extent, India has some breathing space to rework its foreign policy calculations.
Shyam Saran is a former Foreign Secretary and a Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research (CPR)
Over the last year, the World Health Organization (WHO) has been busy, in an unprecedented effort, to calculate the global death toll from COVID-19. This effort, however, has India’s health establishment up in arms. Globally from an estimated six million reported deaths, WHO now estimates these deaths to be closer to almost triple the number. India, deeply affected by successive COVID-19 waves, is not delighted with this revision.
There are gaps
Several news reports have pointed at a significant gap in India’s COVID-19 story — significantly under-reported mortality figures. The unreleased WHO estimates have been prepared by leading global experts but have left India’s health establishment perturbed, with its strong objections to these estimates.
Why? Because as in these figures, India would have had close to four times the COVID-19 deaths reported-a figure that varies highly from India’s previously self-reported figures. This would make India’s tally of COVID-19 deaths amongst the highest globally.
Not surprisingly, India is in serious disagreement with the WHO-prepared COVID-19 mortality estimates. In fact, its continued objections have been holding back the Global WHO Report. The argument being made by India’s health establishment through a public clarification is that this is an overestimation, and the methodology employed is incorrect.
The new estimates also take into account formerly uncounted deaths, but also deaths resulting from the impact of COVID-19. For example, millions who could not access care, i.e., diagnosis or treatment due to COVID-19 restrictions or from COVID-19 cases overwhelming health services.
The methodology for this estimation, led by global experts, is unlikely to be faulty. India’s disagreements with the methodology can be easily addressed through consultation. Also, the need to plump up India’s COVID-19 deaths unnecessarily would serve little or no purpose.
Why then this objection? A quick study of India’s COVID-19 response is insightful. India’s COVID-19 response has been replete with delays and denials. For instance, for the longest time that India’s COVID-19 number rose, the health establishment continued to insist that community transmission was not under way. It took months and several lakh cases before they agreed that COVID-19 was finally in community transmission.
Second wave’s devastation
The end of the first wave saw a slew of congratulatory and adulatory messages by the political leadership applauding India’s leadership in ending COVID-19 in the country. India’s people were told that the war against COVID-19 had been won and over. Until the deadly second wave arrived and crept up on the country which had turned complacent.
The devastation of the second wave showed how unprepared we were to combat the deadly Delta variant. People began dying from lack of access to basic health facilities and infrastructure such as oxygen, beds, ventilators and therapeutics. The wave devastated India’s citizens in unimaginable ways. Crematoriums ran out of wood, people were forced to bury their family members on the banks of rivers. By the time the wave subsided, India’s population was devastated, and helpless, seeing dignity neither in disease nor in death.
Potential fallout
The need then to deny these new mortality figures is much like the case of the emperor’s new clothes. The establishment shudders to think what these figures reveal to the public not just about the lack of preparedness but also the human costs to the country, and communities.
Also, at this time, there is rising unemployment, rising fuel prices and inflation in India. The figures then also have enormous political relevance. They are the much-needed ammunition that a beleaguered and often out of sync and clueless Opposition needs to counter the Government’s victory drumbeat against COVID-19.
These new figures also have the power to revive public memory which is otherwise short-lived. Human tendency is also to gloss over suffering and believe in the mainstream narrative which makes loss more bearable and often easier. These numbers then are important because they can revive the memories of the desperation and the helplessness millions of Indians faced during the devastating second wave.
The COVID-19 mortality data from WHO is more than a disagreement. It is food for thought and poses several questions to India’s health establishment. Were these deaths avoidable? Could India have been better prepared? Was India’s health establishment dismissive in the face of global warnings? Should India have gone to elections in the middle of a pandemic? But the most important question is — why not count the dead?
Even for the Government’s most fervent supporters, these questions are difficult to answer or deflect when faced with such overwhelming mortality figures. It is no surprise then that those figures create fear and spark denial. The figures ratchet up not only issues of administrative but also moral accountability for governments that they have been previously side stepped through effective and misleading media narratives. But, most importantly, these figures pose several key questions before us, the people of India. How much lack of accountability under-reporting are we willing to accept? Do these reduced figures not amount to an erasure of our collective suffering, grief and loss? And who, if anyone, will be held accountable if these figures are accurate? Perhaps it is just as well that death is the end of all questions.
Chapal Mehra is public health specialist, activist and writer based in New Delhi
The recent news of wild poliovirus type 1 (WPV1) in Malawi imported from Pakistan and of polio outbreak in Israel caused by ‘circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 3’ (cVDPV3) are visible signs of floundering polio eradication. When a virus in oral polio vaccine (OPV) de-attenuates by mutations, acquiring transmission efficiency and neuro-virulence, it is called cVDPV.
The eradication target, when launched in 1988, was 2000, as “a gift of the twentieth century to the twenty-first”. The World Health Organization assumed the task, assigned by unanimous resolution in the World Health Assembly (WHA), the forum of Ministers of Health of all nations.
The resolution was perfectly timed: Rotary International launched its ‘PolioPlus’ project in 1985, to provide polio vaccines to under-five children of all developing countries before 2005. Of the six WHO regions, three — Americas, Europe and Western Pacific — had already independently resolved to eradicate polio in their territories by or before 2000. Incidentally, they achieved the goal more or less on time. WHO’s task was essentially confined to the “Southern Arc” of the remaining regions — Africa, Eastern Mediterranean and South East Asia. Having failed the target of 2000, WHO revised it every 4-5 years; now it is 2026, as in the strategy document (https://bit.ly/38fKrkA).
WHO’s budget estimate
There are disturbing aspects of this extraordinarily slow pace. The WHO’s original budget estimate for eradication was about $5 million, but since 2000, the annual spending is about $1 billion, raised through Rotary, Gates Foundation and rich country governments. A billion dollars is not an insignificant portion of WHO’s annual budget. Countries in the three Southern Arc regions continue the eradication drill, like the curse of Sisyphus. India conducts one annual national and two sub-national pulse immunisation campaigns with bivalent (type 1 and 3) OPV (bOPV) for all children below five years, in addition to routine immunisation with five doses — totalling 10 to 15 doses per child in different States.
Every paediatric textbook warns that on rare occasions, OPV itself may cause vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) in vaccinated children (vaccinated VAPP) and unvaccinated child-contacts (contact VAPP). The commonest cause of vaccinated VAPP is type 3 vaccine virus and for contact VAPP, it is type 2.
These safety problems were known since 1964. For avoiding VAPP, rich countries immunise children with the inactivated polio virus vaccine (IPV), which is completely safe.
Should economics or ethics guide our choice between IPV and OPV? The low cost of OPV could be fallacious: will overall programme-cost be less for 10-15 doses of OPV, including campaigns, than IPV given through Universal Immunisation Programme (UIP)? We know of no such analysis.
Benefit-risk balance
Ethics is uncompromising. With SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, benefit-risk balance became widely understood. Against high risk of deaths due to COVID-19, vaccines with rare safety problems, including death, scored well on benefit-risk analysis. When the risk of WPV polio was annually two per 1000 pre-school children, and the risk of VAPP in one per 1,50,000 birth cohorts, the benefit was favourable for OPV. When the risk of death or paralysis falls low, the benefit-risk ratio reverses — as for COVID-19, so also for polio.
After WPV-2 was eradicated in 1999, the benefit of type 2 vaccine virus became defunct. The ethical problem of risk without benefit was neglected until cVDPV2 caused several outbreaks, beginning in 2006, forcing the tOPV (trivalent oral polio vaccine)to bOPV switch in 2016. WHO experts recommended one dose of IPV at 14 weeks of age to mitigate further risks of cVDPV2 outbreaks. But that was too little too late, as more countries continue with cVDPV2 outbreaks than have WPV type 1.
After wild virus type 3 was globally eradicated in 2012, vaccine virus type 3 had to be removed for avoiding VAPP. No agency has any right to cause VAPP in the name of eradication, especially after WPV-3 has been eradicated. This ethical dilemma remained invisible as VAPP is classified non-polio AFP. In Israel, cVDPV3 emerged and caused the outbreak. Only seven children were paralysed, all unvaccinated. The risk of paralysis with WPV-3 is one in 1,000 infected children — so at least 7,000 unvaccinated children were infected. Israel’s population is less than 10 million, but ours is 1,400 million.
The probability of cVDPV3 outbreak is low in India, but on account of our population size of 1,400 million, its impact is likely to be enormous. India must withdraw type 3 and continue monovalent type 1 OPV, which also must be withdrawn after reaching 85-90% coverage with IPV, three doses per child.
T Jacob John is Past President of Indian Academy of Paediatrics and a Founder-Member of Rotary International’s PolioPlus Committee. Dhanya Dharmapalan is Pediatric Infectious Disease Specialist
There is hardly any nook and corner in Tamil Nadu where the music of Ilayaraaja and A.R. Rahman, wizards of two different generations, has not touched the hearts and souls of people even in the contemporary world. It is unlikely this will change in the years to come, for such is the magic of their creations. Despite being a part of people’s lives in Tamil Nadu and beyond, in a span of a fortnight, the two award-winning musicians were panned by rival ecosystems for expressing views of a political nature.
The sharper attacks were directed at Ilayaraaja after he penned a foreword for the bookAmbedkar & Modi: Reformer’s Ideas, Performer’s Implementation , comparing and equating Prime Minister Narendra Modi with the father of the Indian Constitution B.R. Ambedkar. The ‘Isaignani’ (saint of music), who has largely remained politically aloof, saw similarities in the two leaders saying they witnessed poverty and stifling social structures from close quarters and worked to dismantle them. “Both dreamt big for India, but both are also practical men who believe in action rather than mere thought exercise,” he felt.
There were dignified responses from a section including politicians, which argued the comparison between the two leaders was “irrational” and“inappropriate” given the different pedestals on which Mr. Ambedkar and Mr. Modi were placed and thenature of theirvastly varying political contributions.
However, another section was unsparingand took the criticism beyond political counter. The critics felt let down by theman, whose career began on Communist platforms co-travelling with his elder step-brother Pavalar Varadarajan. The latterwas said to have beenhailed by former Kerala Chief Minister E.M.S. Namboodiripad for helpingthe CPIwinthe Devikulamby-election in Kerala, stagingpropagandasongs with a teenaged Ilayaraaja, in the late 1950s.Digressing fromthe issue at hand, they faulted the musician for his inclination in following the footsteps of ‘Brahminical’ spiritual gurus, while seeking toalienatehimself from his Scheduled Caste roots. The Ilayaraaja’sModi-praisingforewordcoincided withrecent summons issued to himfrom theDirectorate General of GST Intelligence, giving them more fodder for suspicion. Top BJP leaders including party president J.P. Nadda lost no opportunity in jumping to themaestro’sdefence.State BJP president K. Annamalaisoughtconferment of the Bharat Ratna on the music composer.This invariably triggeredcharges that the party was seeking to use themusic director to further its political cause in Tamil Nadu,just as it made an aborted attempt with superstar Rajinikanth.
A fortnight earlier, Mr. Rahman was embraced by the Dravidian and Left ideologues. Against the backdrop of Home Minister Amit Shah backing Hindi as a “link language” between States, he had put out a subtle tweet with a seemingly modern image of Goddess Tamil highlighting the glory of Tamil and subsequently quipped “Tamil is the link language”. Certain right-leaning ideologues from within and outside Tamil Nadu sought to attack Mr. Rahman, as in the past when his daughter defended the burqa. He was accused of portraying Tamil goddess in a ‘dark’ and ‘demonic’ form but attempts to orchestrate public opinion against this failed. The musician later stressed the need to cast people of “colour” in important roles in films to break stereotypes.
Ilayaraaja has not backed out from his praise for Mr. Modi or offered any explanation.
Instead, he used music to express himself by tweeting one of his many hit compositions from a Rajinikanth-starrer, the verses of which translate into: “I will not leave you; I will not sleep if you leave. I will sing for you...”
sureshkumar.d@thehindu.co.in
In addressing the residents of Jammu for the first time since the removal of special status for Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019, Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid out a rosy picture of increased connectivity of the Union Territory with the nation’s capital, promised more investments, and hailed the boom in tourism as a harbinger of progress. The UT, conflict-ridden for decades, had fared better on several development indicators compared to the rest of India, except in per capita net State GDP. Data from FY2017 showed that J&K ranked 21st among States then. The investment proposals and development projects inaugurated by the Prime Minister, in particular the connectivity projects between Jammu and Srinagar and Jammu and Delhi should help shore up the UT’s economy. After a period of harsh lockdowns and communication restrictions, the UT went through a tough period, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic between 2019 and 2021. But significantly, the Kashmir Valley has seen a substantial increase in footfalls with a revival of the tourism industry during the recent winter despite security concerns, with its natural beauty proving a magnetic attraction for international travellers in particular, who had been affected by global travel bans. This has come as a balm to the residents of the Valley, with political forces cutting across mainstream and separatist sections calling for unhindered access for tourists in the region.
Does this mean that there is an unequivocal acceptance of the status imposed on the erstwhile unified State of J&K (that included the present day UT of Ladakh), among the people in the Valley and beyond? That certainly does not seem to be the case in the Kashmir Valley, at least if recent events such as the district development council elections in late 2020 are any indication. The Gupkar Alliance, which has steadfastly demanded a return to status quo prior to 2019, had decisively won in the Valley and the group has also vociferously protested the delimitation exercise whose proposals clearly seek to repurpose the politics of J&K through arbitrarily providing greater electoral prospects for Jammu-based parties over Kashmir-based ones. Notwithstanding the recent uptick in economic activity after the prolonged turmoil post-August 2019, there is no indication that the resultant discontent has diminished; security risks continue to remain preponderant as the spurt of terrorist violence shows including the killing of two “fidayeen” militants barely 14 km from Palli village, where the Prime Minister made his address on National Panchayati Raj Day. Beyond doubt, New Delhi must engage in substantive outreach in the form of gestures that reverse the hostility towards the political representatives in the Valley. The return of J&K to statehood will be a good beginning.
After two last-minute cancellations due to waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2021, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was in Delhi last week, committing to more cooperation with India on trade, defence, combating climate change and cyber security. But it was a visit surprisingly short on actual agreements. While an early harvest agreement on trade had to be shelved — the plan was to announce it by Easter (April) this year — Mr. Johnson and Prime Minister Narendra Modi said they have pushed a deadline to complete the full FTA by October-end or Deepavali, with a view to doubling bilateral trade by 2030. It is not clear whether the respective trade delegations are on track for the final agreement, but Mr. Johnson sounded optimistic, with India fast-tracking its FTAs with the UAE and Australia. Of concern to the U.K. is the lifting of Indian tariffs on Scotch whisky, which might make some headway, as India has accepted lower tariffs on Australian wine and the U.K. seems more flexible in increasing visas to Indian professionals. Both Prime Ministers discussed strengthening defence ties and cooperating strategically in the Indo-Pacific. The two leaders also discussed green technology transfers and international climate finance, although India has yet to commit in writing to the Nationally Determined Contributions that Mr. Modi had described at COP26 in Glasgow.
Mr. Johnson did tread lightly on issues that the Modi government is sensitive about, such as Ukraine and human rights violations. He referred to India’s long-standing relationship with Russia, expressing understanding of India’s position, in stark contrast to the visit of his Foreign Minister two weeks ago. He brushed aside a question on human rights concerns in India, despite facing criticism over posing with a bulldozer while inaugurating a factory on the same day the Supreme Court of India was deliberating over the Government’s controversial new policy of using bulldozers to demolish shops and homes. A sub-group is to be set up to study “extremism” inside India and the U.K., which Mr. Johnson suggested would be used to monitor Khalistani groups (as New Delhi desires), but has a broader mandate to counter all groups and individuals “seeking to incite violent extremism and terrorism”. In return, New Delhi chose not to press the point too hard on why economic fugitives (Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi) have still not been extradited. However, while side-stepping irritants in the relationship can increase the prospects for agreements, it cannot replace the actual work and elbow-grease needed to give ties some momentum after years of stasis. Both New Delhi and London must ensure more concerted efforts to bring those agreements to a finale in the near future, to reach their ambitious goals under “Roadmap 2030” agreed to at the last summit in 2021.
Austin, April 24: A distinguished group of thinkers and men of affairs, convened here recently, pondered over the “Problems of the 21st century.” The occasion was an international symposium at the University of Texas in honour of the late historian, Walter Prescott Webb. It brought together men of such divergent background that they would normally have had little reason to talk to each other, and conflict seemed inevitable. The symposium had five public sessions, at which the great men were allowed to pontificate, and five closed sessions where the razor tongues were barred and the speeches were subjected to analysis by a group of 20 younger scholars and students. Here are some random samples of wisdom distributed in three days of talk about what life will be and should be like in the 21st century. Mr. Raymond Aron, philosopher: “We will live in a heterogeneous world under the shadow of disaster. We will live in a world not without small-scale war, not without guerilla warfare, but we will live in a tolerable world. This is an extreme form of optimism from a man who has the reputation of being a pessimist.”
The national week has great significance in the eyes of patriotic Indians of all shades of political opinion, but greater still is its importance to the Punjabees who were singled out by Sir Michael O’Dwyer — a true votary of brute force, for punishment and suffering. From the 6th to the 13th of April three years ago the situation in this Province changed with a dramatic suddenness and the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy turned Amritsar into a veritable Golgotha or a place of skulls. But the price was not paid in vain, for the cause for which the innocent people sacrificed their lives triumphed and the Rowlatt Act could not raise its head, because it became a dead letter and expired unwept, unhonoured and unsung. It was in the fitness of things that the Indian nation resolved to celebrate the national week in order to keep green the memory of those who gave their lives so that their countrymen may live and enjoy the rights of free citizens. The All India Congress Working Committee and the Punjab Provincial Congress Committee having decided not to observe hartal on the 6th.
Slaying the inflation monster is relatively easy when the underlying causes have primarily to do with demand. If an economy grows too fast on the back of rising aggregate demand, firms tend to initially respond by employing more workers, pushing up wages and costs of other inputs. As capacity utilisation rises to levels reducing the amount of unused productive resources, firms will next start increasing prices. The standard tool of central banks to address “demand-pull” inflation has been to raise interest rates. By making it costlier for firms and households to borrow, demand for investment and consumption goods along with workers comes down, thereby cooling an overheated economy.
The problem, however, comes when inflation isn’t demand-led. Data from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy shows the unemployment rate in March at 7.6 per cent. That’s rather high, given a simultaneous fall in the labour participation rate (LPR) to 39.5 per cent. If even a shrunken labour force is struggling to find employment, it’s hardly indicative of a tightening job market. The RBI’s latest survey of the manufacturing sector shows the overall capacity utilisation by reporting companies at 72.4 per cent for October-December. Although the highest in 10 quarters, it is below the long-term average of 75 per cent from 2008-09 to 2018-19. If anything, it points to recovery from a deep slowdown that began in 2019-20. And the recovery isn’t strong enough to induce overheating — unlike in the US, which had a 3.6 per cent unemployment rate on an LPR of 62.4 per cent in March. Also, the fact that annual wholesale inflation in March, at 14.55 per cent, was more than double the 6.95 per cent rate at retail level suggests limited pricing power with firms: Current demand conditions aren’t allowing them to fully pass on the higher costs at producer level to consumers.
What most countries, including India, are experiencing today is “supply-shock” inflation. There have been too many supply chain disruptions over the last two years, caused first by the Covid-triggered lockdowns and now the Russia-Ukraine war. Coming one after another, they have proved to be persistent than transitory, resulting in what economists term as a leftward shift in the aggregate supply curve and driving up prices for the same or even lower levels of demand. Those critical of the RBI, for being “behind the curve”, should know there’s little that central banks can do about inflation caused by supply-side factors. If interest rates are a cost themselves, wouldn’t hiking risk worsen inflation by impeding supply? And how does cooling something that isn’t hot help really? Policymakers can, perhaps, draw more lessons from the stagflation decade of the 1970s. Then too, it was supply shocks from geopolitics that defied simple technocratic solutions. Simply put, there are limits to how much interest rates can be increased.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s first visit to Jammu and Kashmir after its August 5, 2019 bifurcation and the end of its special status appeared to have two purposes. One, on a day officially observed as Panchayati Raj day, he projected the thousands of people’s representatives elected through the panchayat system — freshers, as it were, in politics — as the “real” engines of governance at the “grassroots” of the former state. “Empowerment” of the people has been a pet theme of the Modi government after the BJP pulled out of the ruling coalition led by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in 2018, setting the stage for the events of the following year. The Modi government, since May 2019, has done its best to marginalise the established political parties in Kashmir. It is no secret that the most empowered section in J&K is the bureaucracy, accountable only to itself. The panchayats are a small cog in the wheel of the administration, and their members, elected in a process marred by violence and living under the threat of militants, know it. It is widely understood that only an Assembly election can truly empower the people through their chosen legislators, just like it does in the rest of the country. The delay in holding these elections was justified in the name of a delimitation process. Putting it off any more can only confirm the government’s continuing contempt for the will of the people and the democratic process in J&K.
The second objective, to announce investments by some of the biggest companies in the United Arab Emirates, is possibly far more significant and consequential, from a strategic point of view. The UAE is an important member of the Organisation of Islamic Conference and as such, is an influencer in the Islamic world. Two years ago, it took the radical step of shaking hands with Israel. Now, the government claims, the Arab country’s most important business houses appear ready to invest in the Modi government’s “naya” Kashmir. There is a message in this for the people of Kashmir, including the diaspora, a significant number have made the UAE their home. As well, it is a message to Pakistan, which describes the UAE as a “brother country”. The secret India-Pakistan backchannel talks were reportedly held in that country. It is to be seen what, if any, impact this might have on the positioning over Kashmir by the new government in Islamabad.
In his outreach to the youth in the Valley, the prime minister said, “You will never suffer the way your parents, grandparents did in the past.” This welcome message of hope can be realised on the ground only if the youth become stakeholders in the building of the state. The investment push, infrastructure development and the flow of tourists into the Valley need, for their fruition, a genuine political process, an essential aspect of a democracy.
In my younger days, if we wanted to comment on any article in a newspaper, we rattled off a short letter to the editor on our typewriter. Now there are journalists whose comments are in the form of an article as long as the one under discussion. Many of them can only be described as clones of Humpty Dumpty, confident that “When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean, no more, no less”.
A recent example is that of an article by S Y Quraishi (‘Calling out hate’, April 15) and the comment that followed. Noting the alarming reports of hate speeches in the social media, Quraishi wrote, “It is at the root of many forms of violence that are being perpetrated and has become one of the biggest challenges to the rule of law and to our democratic conscience.” He lists those who can act firmly and swiftly — during elections it is the Election Commission that must act, and in the “non-election” months the state has the power to act by using provisions of the Indian Penal Code, and the Representation of the People Act. The sense of urgency in his article was palpable.
There was a rejoinder to Quraishi in The Indian Express (‘Ignorance isn’t bliss’, April 21). Balbir Punj, the writer, says in the second paragraph that Quraishi’s “arguments are drearily familiar, facts dodgy, and conclusions delusional”. Punj adds: “Quraishi’s article has little to do with the anatomy of hate or its ongoing malignancy”. Quraishi was not dissecting the emotion of hate, he was criticising the inaction of the Election Commission and the courts, in the context of hate-speeches made by individuals over the last year.
Punj begins his piece on a breathless note: “Hate and bigotry feed on each other. They germinate and flourish on a toxic diet of divisive and schismatic ideologies and polarising creeds that discriminate against human beings on the basis of colour, region, gender, faith — and divide them between believers and non-believers — ranging the chosen ones against the idolatrous”. The strapline was “Understanding trail of hate in India requires honest examination of its origins”. Eleven of the 15 paragraphs in the essay deal with this trail.
History as a discipline is about time, place and people. Teachers of history compartmentalise themselves into sections of time and of place/region. Not so the non-historian. Punj writes, “For aeons, India has had syncretic traditions, inspired by the Vedic aphorism “ekam sad [sic] vipra bahudha vadanti” (there is only one truth and learned persons call it by many names). In September 2020, a 16-member committee was set up by the Ministry of Culture to study the origin and evolution of Indian culture, “dating back to around 12,000 years ago”. It held two meetings and vanished from the scene. That’s a cautionary tale.
Bhakti and Sufi cults have been for long described as “syncretic”. Punj does not associate Sindh with its great Sufi tradition, but with bin Qasim’s conquest in 712 CE and the coming of Islam — “…as Chach Nama, a contemporary Arab chronicle states, [he] introduced the practice of treating local Hindus as zimmis, forcing them to pay jizya… ‘Hate’ and ‘bigotry’ thus made their debut in India, which was hitherto free from this virus”.
It is worth locating and browsing through translations of the Chach Nama, for its accounts of the attitude of the Arab rulers of Sindh towards the Hindu population and their places of worship. A natural outcome of this beginning was the enduring presence of Sufi orders in Sindh.
The simplest — but not wholly ethical — way to substantiate an argument is by cherry-picking. From 8th-century Sindh the author moves to 11th-century north India. He writes of Mahmud of Ghazni who “took a vow to wage jihad every year against Indian idolators”. (I tried to locate a source for this, and came up only with one — an earlier article by Punj, on July 12, 2019). Ghaznavi’s exact contemporary, Rajendra Chola, was in the same period raiding Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia. In Indian school textbooks Ghaznavi has always been an “invader”, the Cholas were “conquerors”.
The next eight centuries are omitted, and the trail moves down to Malabar (the Moplah Rebellion of 1921), then north and east India (the Partition tragedies of 1946-8), the “decimation” of Hindus in neighbouring countries (no dates) and people in Spain and Sweden.
He proceeds to ask a rhetorical question “Can laws or police fight hate?”
And this article was published a day after the BJP-run civic body let the bulldozers raze homes in Jahangirpuri “in the face of the Supreme Court order” as the Indian Express headline stated on the same day as Punj’s article!
Punj’s narrative could be described in his own words — “charged reactions, punctuated with half-truths, deliberate omissions and tailored narratives, offer no real solution” [to what?]. This is followed by a line which I find extremely difficult to decipher — “pusillanimity to face facts will only exacerbate the situation and give egregious results.”
This column first appeared in the print edition on April 25, 2022 under the title ‘History as mischief’. The writer is a Delhi-based historian
The release of two new working papers, one from the World Bank and the other from the IMF, has led to a renewed debate on poverty in India. Both papers claim that extreme poverty in the country, based on the international definition of $1.90 per capita per day (in purchasing power parity (PPP), has declined substantially (figure 1). The World Bank paper uses the Consumer Pyramid Household Surveys (CPHS) data to conclude that 10.2 per cent of the country’s population was at extreme poverty levels in 2019.
The IMF paper calculates poverty by using the NSO Consumer Expenditure Survey as the base and adjusts it for the direct effect of the massive food grain subsidy given under the National Food Security Act (NFSA, 2013) and PM Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY) during the pandemic period. It claims that extreme poverty has almost vanished – it was 0.77 per cent in 2019 and 0.86 per cent in 2020.
Another estimate of poverty by the NITI Aayog, the multi-dimensional poverty index (MPI), has put Indian poverty at 25 per cent in 2015 based on NFHS data. This MPI is calculated using twelve key components from areas such as health and nutrition, education and standard of living. By 2019-20, it is expected that MPI would have further declined as the access to health, education and other basic facilities has significantly improved amongst the poor, especially after 2015.
One may debate whether the poverty line at $1.9 PPP is too low and needs to be scaled up to $3.2 PPP. The IMF paper estimates that poverty based on $ 3.2 PPP — this includes food transfers — to be at 14.8 per cent of the country’s population in 2019. The World Bank paper estimates it to be 44.9 per cent. Irrespective of whether extreme poverty is below 1 per cent, or 10 per cent or 25 per cent, and whether food transfers played a positive role in reducing poverty, a critical question remains: Why is there still a need to distribute nearly free food to 800 million people in the name of food security? Does the politics of freebies for votes make for prudent policy?
The offtake of grains under NFSA in FY20 was 56.1 million metric tonnes (MMT). Following the outbreak of Covid-19, the government launched the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY) as a special relief scheme in April 2020 to distribute 25 kg cereals per family per month in addition to food transfers under the NFSA. The scheme was justified to help migrant workers. That catapulted the offtake to 87.5 MMT (under PMGKAY and NFSA) in FY21. The scheme continued in FY22, and the grain offtake touched 93.2 MMT. In FY23, after the pandemic has ebbed and the economy has, by and large, bounced back, a further extension of free food on top of the NFSA allocations was uncalled for. This will strain the fisc, reduce public investments and hamper potential job creation. The public grain management system is crying out for reforms, and this is the right time for the Narendra Modi government to fix it.
A look at the size of food freebies will help understand the gravity of this problem. As of April 1, the Food Corporation of India’s wheat and rice stocks stood at 74 MMT against a buffer stock norm of 21 MMT – there is, therefore, an “excess stock” of 53 MMT. The economic cost of rice, as given by FCI, is Rs 3,7267.6/tonne and that of wheat is Rs 2,6838.4/tonne (2020/21). The value of “excess stocks”, beyond the buffer norm, is, therefore, Rs 1.85 lakh crore — this, despite a total of 72.2 MMT grains distributed for free under the PMGKAY in FY21 and FY22. This only speaks of a highly inefficient grain management system.
All this results in a ballooning food subsidy – in FY21, it spiked to more than Rs 5.41 lakh crore because FCI arrears were cleared. In FY22, it came down to Rs 2.86 lakh crore and now in the Union budget for FY 23, it is provisioned at Rs 2.06 lakh crore. But this amount is likely to go beyond Rs 2.8 lakh crore with the continuing distribution of free food under the PMGKAY. This would amount to more than 10 per cent of the Centre’s net tax revenue (after deducting the states’ share).
Given the level of freebies on just one item, the important question that arises is: Can this be a sustainable path towards poverty alleviation? Strategic thinking on economic policies tells us that it is better to teach a person how to catch a fish than to give him/her a free fish every day. Giving out crumbs cannot inspire a society to grow. It is all the more important to change the current policy of free food given the massive leakages in the PDS. As per the High-Level Committee on restructuring FCI, leakages were more than 40 per cent based on the NSSO data of 2011. Ground reports suggest that these leakages hover around 30 per cent or so today.
In reforming this system of free food, wisdom lies in going back to former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s vision. Vajpayee introduced the Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY), wherein, the “antyodaya” households (the most poor category) get more rations (35 kg per household) at a higher subsidy (rice, for instance, at Rs 3/kg and wheat at Rs2/kg). For the remaining below poverty line (BPL) families, the price charged was 50 per cent of the procurement price and for above poverty line families (APL), it was 90 per cent of the procurement price.
There could be some problems in identifying the poor. However, technology can help overcome this difficulty. This will make PDS more targeted and lead to cost savings. This measure should be combined with giving people the option of receiving cash instead of providing grains to targeted beneficiaries. The savings so generated from this reform can be ploughed back as investments in agri-R&D, rural infrastructure (irrigation, roads, markets) and innovations that will help create more jobs and reduce poverty on a sustainable basis. Can the Modi government bite the bullet and emulate the Vajpayee government in using scarce resources more wisely? Only time will tell.
This column first appeared in the print edition on April 25, 2022 under the title ‘Poverty and politics of freebies’. Gulati is Infosys Chair Professor and Juneja is Consultant at ICRIER
One of the authors of the article is Rituparna Chakraborty
Most people won’t buy a plane ticket from Bengaluru to Delhi for 2032 because common sense suggests many things will change, the relationship between things will change, and an airline silly enough to sell tickets so far in advance will probably be dead. Yet, it’s impossible to have a meeting about skill development without a well-meaning soul suggesting commissioning a report predicting where jobs will be in 2032. Nobody can know what jobs will be created in the long run. A poor country with five million people writing software for the world was impossible to predict for India in 1947, 1991 or 2001. But the inability to predict hardly means an inability to prepare. We make the case that enabling degree apprentices — a tripartite contract between an employer, university, and the youth — will make our skill system self-healing, enrol 10 million young people, and make us the world’s largest apprenticeship system.
Framers by Cukier, Mayer-Schonberger, and Vericourt suggests humans think in mental models because these representations of reality allow us to see patterns, make sense of our circumstances, and think about the future. But successful mental models need thinking about causality, counterfactuals and constraints. A policy mental model that replaces this difficult work with certainty is not only inefficient but dangerous. Planning Democracy by Nikhil Menon skillfully sketches the mental model of P C Mahalanobis — our economy as a machine with fixed goals, levers, relationships and players. This model is why it took 72 years for 1.3 billion Indians to cross the GDP of 66 million Britishers. Our labour was handicapped without capital and our capital was handicapped without labour. Our skill mental model must shift from classical physics (simplicity and linearity) to quantum physics (reflexivity and complexity). Degree apprentices are an important pillar of this new mental model. They embrace five design principles:
Learning while earning: Skill development faces a market failure in financing. Employers are not willing to pay for training or candidates but pay a premium for trained candidates; candidates are not willing to pay for training but for jobs; financiers are unwilling to lend unless a job is guaranteed, and training institutions can’t fill their classrooms. Most young Indians can’t pay for building employability out-of-pocket. The income support of learning while earning is crucial to raising enrollment and making it more inclusive. Degree apprentices attract money — stipends and scholarships payments — from employers because of the high return on investment arising from these graduates having better productivity, lower attrition, and lower time needed to fill open jobs.
Learning by doing: Our skill system has largely been driven by supply — curriculum and faculty — rather than demand. The wage premium in the job market’s fastest-growing part — engineering, sales, customer service, and logistics — is moving from the hard skills of quantity to quality (soft skills) that are not taught but caught. The guaranteed workplace and theory immersion of degree apprenticeships ensures kids develop the current, soft, and theoretical skills required because employers integrate a practical and theoretical curriculum with actual doing.
Learning with flexible delivery: Skills can be learnt in four classrooms: On-the-job (apprenticeships), online, on-campus, and onsite (faculty coming to workplaces). Each of these has very different price points. One of us paid Rs 18,000 per hour for an American business school campus degree while an online degree apprenticeship over five years costs about Rs 20 per hour. Massifying India’s higher education — our goal of 50 per cent GER — requires equal treatment for all classrooms. Institutions offering degree apprenticeships will deliver employability and inclusiveness by combining the four classrooms in varying proportions depending on the needs, abilities, and means of different employers and young job seekers.
Learning with qualification modularity: Gandhiji imagined Nai Talim around holistic and experiential education but the policy caste system between vocational and degree education grew larger — and stronger — with the Radhakrishnan Report (1948), Kothari Commission (1968 ), and New National Policy on Education (1986). Students mostly can’t use a three-month certificate as an opening balance for a one-year diploma, a two-year advanced diploma, or a three-year degree. NEP 2020 proposes to remove partitions between schools, skills, and college. Degree apprenticeships offer academic credit for prior skills and for on-the-job learning, and full qualification modularity via multiple on and off-ramps between certificates, diplomas, and degrees.
Learning with signalling value: IIMs and IITs are good places to be “at” but better places to be “from”. But this signalling has created considerable supply — the world produced more graduates in the last 40 years than in the 800 years prior. Degree holders make up 60 per cent of taxi drivers in Korea, 31 per cent of US large format retail checkout clerks, and 15 per cent of high-end Indian security guards. Traditionally, institutions created signalling value by enforcing tight entry gates (IIMs/IITs) or tight exit gates (chartered accountants). But massifying higher education — with equality, excellence and employability — needs a different balance of entry and exit gates. Degree apprentices have higher capacity and employability than many pure campus degrees because the tripartite contract is a financing, signalling value and delivery innovation. Apprentices became Indian policy priority many years ago — expanding their numbers was the 20th point in the 20-point programme of 1975. But the execution was timid. We have willing employers, universities, and kids but degree apprentice numbers are low because of regulatory cholesterol in tripartite apprenticeship contracts, online university licencing, legislative definitions, NSQF pathway to degrees, process complexities, quota simplifications, etc. Regulations must change. There are 10 million good — and young — reasons that degree apprentices are an idea whose time has come.
This column first appeared in the print edition on April 25, 2022 under the title ‘Reskilling society’. The writers are with TeamLease Services
Serving in the Swiss Foreign Service imposes a certain informal obligation. This is that you will often have to explain to your friends in foreign countries the rationale, and the essence of Switzerland’s unique history of neutrality. I have had many conversations on this over the years, in many different countries. But never once did it occur to me that a day would come when I would be discussing this matter in the dark shadow of a potential nuclear confrontation in Europe, arising from the military aggression of one sovereign state against another.
Yet, such is the tragic reality of our times.
Predictably enough, over the past weeks, I have been asked by a number of Indian friends about Switzerland’s stance on Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine. In particular, I have been asked whether Switzerland has abandoned its tradition of neutrality.
This week’s Raisina Dialogue in New Delhi is an important forum for discussing the new security environment and its implications for the world. I am grateful for this opportunity to share my views on this matter.
Switzerland’s foreign policy goals are peace, security, and the rule of law. These are the foundations of Swiss prosperity and sustainable development. The Federal Constitution requires the Swiss Government to take measures to safeguard our neutrality.
The rights and obligations of a neutral state were defined in The Hague Conventions of 1907. Of interest is that it was Tsar Nicolas II, Emperor of All the Russias, who convened this historic meeting.
The most important of these rights is the inviolability of a neutral state’s territory. The main obligations of a neutral state are to refrain from acts such as engaging in war, supplying mercenary troops to belligerent states, or allowing belligerent states to use its territory. Also, ensuring its own defence and treating belligerent states equally in terms of the exportation of war material.
So, I can categorically state that when it comes to Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine, Switzerland is in full compliance with the international obligations that come with being a neutral state. Switzerland has not abandoned her neutrality at all.
But what about the fact that Switzerland is implementing the same sanctions against Russia as the European Union? Well, as an important international financial centre, Switzerland had to take action to prevent the misuse of its banking system for the financing of Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine. Adopting economic sanctions is compatible with the obligations of a neutral state. Switzerland’s adoption of the European Union sanctions does not alter its neutrality in any way.
Switzerland has also been investing substantial diplomatic capital into solving the Ukraine conflict. Following the beginning of the Ukraine crisis in 2014, Switzerland was heavily involved in trying to bring about an end to the fighting. Switzerland presided over the Organisation for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE) in 2015. Didier Burkhalter, President of the Swiss Confederation at that time, personally lead mediation efforts. The Swiss diplomat, Ambassador Heidi Tagliavini, represented the OSCE in the 2015 negotiations about the Minsk II agreement concerning the conflict in Donbass. Another Swiss diplomat, Ambassador Thomas Greminger, served as the secretary general of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe from 2017 to 2022. Switzerland’s consistent policy explains why my country was chosen to host the 5th Ukraine Reform Conference, which should take place on July 4 and 5, in Lugano.
What next? The President of the Swiss Confederation Ignazio Cassis has made it clear that Switzerland stands ready upon request to mediate and to host peace talks on Swiss soil. The Swiss Government, like the Government of India, continues to provide humanitarian assistance to the people in Ukraine and to the Ukrainian refugees in the neighbouring countries. As in 1956 for Hungarian refugees and in 1968 for refugees from Czechoslovakia, the Swiss people have opened their arms to tens of thousands of refugees. In March alone, the Swiss people pledged 30 million CHF in private donations to Ukraine.
Everything I know and believe convinces me that even for this current crisis which dominates global fears at this time, a resolution will be found. And when that time comes, Switzerland will be part of the reconstruction and reconciliation efforts. Switzerland has a critical interest in a functioning multilateral system in Geneva and in New York. The impasse at the United Nations is the result of permanent Security Council members exercising their veto power. Switzerland, like India, is in favour of Security Council reforms.
My country is running for a seat on the United Nations Security Council for the period of 2023-24. If elected, Switzerland will always be on the side of peace, international security, and the rule of law.
This column first appeared in the print edition on April 25, 2022 under the title ‘A Swiss promise’. The writer is Ambassador of Switzerland to India and Bhutan
Emmanuel Macron’s victory in the French presidential poll run-off certainly comes as a big relief for the EU. Macron’s challenger, the far-right politician Marine Le Pen, is a known Euro-sceptic and a long-time sympathiser of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Needless to say her election as President of France would have been catastrophic for the European bloc which is already grappling with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Therefore, Macron securing a second term in office – he becomes the first French president to do so in 20 years – ensures European unity, at least for the time being.
But considerable challenges lie ahead. Macron’s first big test will be the French parliamentary polls in June. Here Macron could face substantial opposition from both the left and right in French politics. After all, the presidential run-off results show that Macron’s victory was bolstered by left voters who don’t necessarily agree with his policies but wanted to block Le Pen from coming to power. They won’t need to be this tactical in the parliamentary polls.
Plus, Macron’s victory margin this time was much tighter than 2017 when he beat Le Pen by securing 66% of the vote compared to 58% now. This shows how far the far-right has progressed towards power in France.
Add to this Macron’s big unfinished task of reforming the French welfare system which has seen significant resistance. That said, the world today needs an outward-looking France that is willing to solve global problems, uphold liberal values and defend democracy. Of course, this is particularly true for Europe with the Ukraine crisis exemplifying the battle between democracies and authoritarian regimes. But from an Indian point of view, France’s involvement is also needed in the Indo-Pacific to uphold a rules-based, free and open region.
For, France has historically had a stake in the Indo-Pacific and Macron has previously called out China’s attempts to dominate the region through its massive infrastructure and connectivity initiatives. Thus, a stable France led by a centrist like Macron is good for both the EU and the world. But the global battle to uphold democracy and liberal values will continue even after Macron demits office. He must prepare France for that now.
India’s power sector often grapples with cash-strapped electricity distribution companies running up overdues to power generators. This problem persists – overdues from largely state government-owned distribution companies were in the range of Rs 1 lakh crore at the end of February. To this perennial problem, new challenges have been added. For the second time in about seven months thermal power plants are grappling with coal inventory dipping to critical levels. Given that both coal mining and logistics through railways are dominated by GoI-owned enterprises, it reflects poorly on official management of an essential economic input.
Last week, Tamil Nadu government wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking help in the form of adequate railway rakes to transport enough coal. This embodies the seriousness of the situation. Consider the following. On April 1, the central electricity regulator capped the price on energy exchanges at Rs 12/kWh to insulate the system from skyrocketing rates. The price cap came in the backdrop of depleting coal inventory with plants. On April 21, 62% of the plants had coal stock that was classified by the Central Electricity Authority as critical, inventory of less than 25% of the normative stock. A month earlier about 49% of plants were classified as critical.
CEA’s reports show that many plants have indicated inadequacy of railway rakes as the reason for low stock. It’s inexplicable. Coal provides about 49% of railway freight earnings and is the key to a healthy financial performance. It’s puzzling how railways finds itself unable to anticipate the infrastructure needs of the most important item it moves. What makes the current situation worrisome is that planning deficiencies at the central level have come in the backdrop of a weak financial position of state government distribution companies. This makes it unlikely they will use imports to fill the gap as the benchmark coal Australia price has more than doubled in a year to an average of $197 per tonne in the January-March quarter.
India’s struggle with coal supply to its power plants has come about at a time when manufacturing still has spare capacity. It’s a timely wake-up call for the full chain in the power sector. Ad hoc reforms will not work any longer. The distribution link has to move to a more efficient pricing system as mounting overdues cripple the upstream segments of the power sector. And as the primary logistics provider in the sector, the railways needs to step up.
The Prime Minister’s first public rally in Jammu & Kashmir since the nullification of Article 370 in 2019 saw him talk up grassroots democracy and a development push for the region. Speaking at Palli, officially described as the country’s first carbon-neutral panchayat, Modi marked the first panchayat day celebration in J&K. Plus, he green-flagged a raft of projects, worth over Rs 20,000 crore, including the opening of the Banihal-Qazigund tunnel connecting Jammu and Kashmir. To add to the message of new investment, Modi was accompanied by business leaders from the UAE. The latter’s proposed investments in the region could top Rs 3,000 crore, as per government claims.
Both panchayat focus and new investment are also political signals – that Article 370 was holding J&K’s development back and it is only now that the region can enjoy fruits of prosperity. The BJP leadership has long argued that the previous system only benefited a few political families in the Kashmir Valley. The point to be noted is that there’s never been a short supply of central financial support for J&K – 59% of its revenues came from central grants in 2012, that increased to 64% in the last financial year. So, the real economic test in post-370 nullification will be whether new investment and “new” politics can create new opportunities, assuming Pak-abetted terrorism can be kept at bay.
Valley terror also shows that one big challenge for GoI is to win hearts and minds. Only this can provide a popular shield against Pakistan’s terrorist proxies. It will also create conditions for actual on-ground private investments. Towards that end, assembly elections in J&K and eventual restoration of statehood are vital to ensure residents have a say in their own development. That in turn requires the delimitation exercise – which is in the public opinion/consultation stage – be fast-tracked.
The government has trimmed the size of the initial public offering (IPO) of Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India after anchor investors found the original valuation rich during war and capital flight from emerging economies. The insurer now proposes to offer 3.5% of its stock for ₹21,000 crore. This values the insurer at ₹6 lakh crore, at 1.1 times its embedded value, or the sum of its net assets and future profits. Earlier plans to sell 5% of LIC's stock for around ₹63,000 crore in what would have been the country's biggest IPO appear a bit too ambitious in the current market conditions. The shrunken issue will require an exemption from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) that requires companies valued above Rs1 lakh crore post-listing to float a minimum 5% stake.
LIC's listing, initially scheduled for the previous fiscal year, was pushed back by the Covid pandemic. GoI missed its revised disinvestment target for 2021-22, which was slashed from ₹1.75 lakh crore to ₹78,000 crore. The actual collection was ₹13,530 crore, of which ₹2,700 crore came in through the sale of Air India to the Tata Group. Original plans to sell stakes in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) and Shipping Corporation of India (SCI) had to be delayed. With receipts missing vastly reduced, revised estimates in two of the four preceding years, the disinvestment target for the current fiscal year has been set more prudently at ₹65,000 crore, and the LIC IPO could have helped meet most of it. With a smaller LIC issue, disinvestment of other state-run companies may regain traction.
The LIC IPO size has been reduced on an understanding that market conditions are unlikely to improve in the near term. This is a reasonable assumption. These market conditions will apply to divestment overall. Sell-off proceeds were more than offset by tax buoyancy in 2021-22. The situation has altered significantly since then. Growth is less certain and energy prices are likely to remain volatile. So, the revised IPO size is quite pragmatic.
<
Read in source website
In a de facto bipolar world, this was the de jure bipolar election. And going against the grain for most electorates, India's included, it was the centre - not the populist right or left - that won. Emmanuel Macron gathered 58.5% votes, staving off an incrementally rising challenge from Marine Le Pen (41.5%) of the nationalist National Rally, his old challenger in the 2017 bout. With this win, Macron has kept France 'in the middle,' even as the former investment banker's radical centrism looks more like a conservative option for most voters whose objective was to keep Le Pen out.
Macron has been what the left and right, worldwide, has not dared to be: pro-globalisation, pro-market. But if Le Pen's rising chips, despite her 'third time unlucky' bid for Elysee Palace, signal something, it is that those left behind in the undertow, especially in the northern and eastern regions in industrial decline and in the south-east where immigrant-phobia is palpable, will pose a challenge for the president. With parliamentary elections in June, France can expect political regrouping that will test Macron's talent for making former socialists and republicans share a tent. 'Doing things' can get harder.
France matters in Europe's compass, especially in a post-Covid landscape where China and its cat's paw, the Russian Putinate, loom large. Macron's steady hand on the foreign policy and economic front - France's post-Covid recovery has been the second fastest among G-7 countries after the US - needs political steadiness and, as he admitted in his victory speech on Sunday, bridge-building. That requires his six-year-old party, La Republique En Marche - The Republic on the March - and not just Macron himself, to rediscover some spring in its step.
<
Read in source website
Emmanuel Macron’s victory in the French presidential elections is good news for France, Europe and India-France ties. In the past five years, Mr Macron has carved out a distinct centrist platform with a focus on growth and stability internally. Externally, while retaining the aspiration for a strong and autonomous France, he has displayed leadership in identifying newer strategic threats (China), reorienting France to deal with these threats in key geographies (Indo-Pacific), investing in the European project (he is arguably Europe’s most important leader), and, in recent weeks, taking on the Russia challenge both through direct diplomacy (with Vladimir Putin) and international coalition-building (with the rest of Europe and the United States). Under Mr Macron, who shares a warm personal rapport with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Paris’s bond with Delhi has deepened. The bilateral collaboration stands out as a model of an ideal relationship where both sides are acutely sensitive and respectful of each other’s core interests, across the domains of defence, economy, climate and in the multilateral arena. It wouldn’t not be an exaggeration to say that among all the western countries, France is India’s closest friend.
In itself, Mr Macron’s win would have been good news. But it is even more significant because the alternative — Marine Le Pen — represented the far-Right end of the French political spectrum. In the tradition of the populist Right-wing leaders that have made a mark on both sides of the Atlantic in the past decade, her politics tapped into the discontent against globalisation and subsequent economic dislocation and inequality, immigration, and sought to locate France within a solely French sovereignty-centric political matrix away from Europe. Her perceived sympathy for Russia and past links with Mr Putin didn’t help, indicating that the ground mood in the West isn’t in favour of Moscow which continues its offensive in Ukraine. Ms Le Pen’s win would have led to inevitable democratic backsliding in France, a rupture in Europe, and uncertainty globally.
But Mr Macron will also be worried. Politically, while he had a comfortable lead in Sunday’s vote, Ms Le Pen won 41.8% of the vote and her message clearly resonates with a large segment of the electorate which will now have to figure in the president’s governance and political calculus. In June’s parliamentary elections, Mr Macron will once again face a challenge from both the Left and the Right. And externally, the war in Ukraine continues and Mr Macron’s peacemaking efforts have failed so far. The second term will be more challenging.
On Sunday, European Commission (EC) president Ursula von der Leyen said that the European Union (EU) and India must step up their cooperation in renewable and clean energy sectors. This, she added, must be done in their “common interest” to reduce dependence on foreign oil (she was referring to the Ukraine war and its impact on Europe’s energy landscape; Russia accounts for a tiny fraction of India’s energy basket but a significant portion of the EU’s), tackle extreme weather events, and meet their respective energy needs.
Ms von der Leyen’s comments on the enhanced EU-India green energy partnership are significant because both are important players in international climate diplomacy and have had an EU-India Clean Energy and Climate Partnership since 2016. There are substantial commercial, financial and industrial ties between the two partners; both have traditional interests in the UNFCCC process and are allies at the International Solar Alliance. So, there is a lot of potential for strengthening the ties. India can benefit from the expertise of European companies who are frontrunners in zero-energy buildings, renewable energy, green hydrogen, and grid integration and its pledge to reach 500 GW in renewable energy capacity by 2030 is a massive economic opportunity for European industry.
However, at the core of these enhanced opportunities is the need to ensure access to the best technologies and scalable finance – the two most challenging aspects of climate negotiations. The West (including EU) has consistently failed to deliver the existing $100 billion a year target by 2020 to the developing world. This was raised in the last climate meeting in Glasgow. To move ahead, developed countries must explore instruments, policies, and frameworks to identify means of reducing the cost of finance for developing countries. This is important because investing in the energy transition in emerging economies such as India is cheaper than in developed countries due to lower marginal costs. Such investments also underscore the principle of climate justice, which India has consistently raised at international forums for decades. To paraphrase a line from Hollywood movie Jerry Maguire: Show us the money.
To the relief of parents and children, schools have reopened, and children are back to their normal lives of attending in-person classes and playing with schoolmates. The spike in Covid cases, so far, hasn’t derailed this. But there is another concern affecting children and parents in several parts of the country: Extreme heat.
The other day, I saw children packed to capacity in school vans on their way back home around 2 pm. Some children had their faces pasted to the windows as others stuffed in seemed to gasp for some air and cool. It’s a routine sight in Delhi.
But it’s also very likely that many children are physically and psychologically impacted by extreme heat during their difficult commute. It’s impossible to air-condition all schools in heatwave-prone regions. But, at the very least, schools can be built or retrofitted to keep the thermal comfort of children in mind and make their commute easier. Summer vacations will have to be also carefully planned, responding effectively to ongoing weather conditions.
Perhaps one of the effective ways to beat the heat at school would be to have adequate foliage, with native trees on the campus and well-ventilated structures to keep school hours bearable for children of all age groups. These interventions could address the psychological stress of attending school during high temperatures. For many children living in unauthorised colonies and shanties, the school is the only escape from heat stress. This is what school authorities must address.
The India Meteorological Department (IMD) has issued an extended-range forecast for the two weeks from April 22 to April 28 and April 29 to May 5. The forecast shows above-normal temperatures during both the weeks, particularly between April 29 and May 5 over the entire country except parts of peninsular India.
On Thursday, M Rajeevan, former secretary, ministry of earth sciences (MoES), tweeted out a warning:
Are governments in heat affected regions considering an early summer vacation schedule factoring in the spike in maximum temperatures next week? More importantly, are schools considering the impact of climate crisis on children and how schools can help manage them? IMD experts have warned that parts of east India, including Odisha, Jharkhand, and Bihar, are likely to be significantly impacted by heat stress over the next two weeks. These are also regions with high humidity levels that can make even a minor increase in temperature difficult to handle.
The time has come to consider these impacts because they are already pronounced now. We cannot underestimate the morbidity and mortality burden of heatwaves any more. According to ministry of earth sciences’ response in the Rajya Sabha to a question on the number of casualties due to extreme weather events in India, there were 505 deaths in 2019 due to heatwaves out of 3,017 extreme weather casualties that year.
In 2016, there were 501 heatwave deaths, 2,081 in 2015, and 1,433 in 2013. According to experts, these numbers are still a gross underestimation of heatwave mortality. In most states, all cause mortality (death from any cause) is not declared by districts, so its difficult to track the spike in deaths during heat extremes. The climate crisis is already increasing vector-borne and water-borne diseases, undernutrition, mental disorders and allergic diseases in Asia by increasing the hazards such as heatwaves, flooding and drought, and air pollution, in combination with higher exposure and vulnerability, according to the IPCC’s report titled Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability released in March.
In addition to all-cause mortality, deaths related to circulatory, respiratory, diabetic and infectious disease, as well as infant mortality are on the rise in Asia with high temperatures, the report said.
Dilip Malvankar, director, Indian Institute of Public Health, Gujarat explained to me during my reportage that extreme heat puts an increased load on the circulatory system, which has to do additional work to cool the body by sweating. This can lead to dehydration and increased metabolism. Excess heat can also be linked to an increase in, or exacerbation of, complications of diabetes due to dehydration and increased metabolism. Infant mortality will, therefore, rise because children are not able to control their body temperature well. Their bodies can get overheated during heat waves.
While planning for the extreme heat season, governments need to keep another issue in sight, that 1.5 degrees Celsius breach in global warming is now imminent. While the breach of this milestone in itself may not suddenly change our experience of extreme weather events, it does tell us that we need to adapt to the severe impacts of the climate crisis now.
The amount of greenhouse gases like CO2 emitted by the world needs to peak by 2025 followed by a 43% reduction over the next 10 years in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the IPCC said in its mitigation report released earlier this month. It warned that policies implemented till the end of 2020 will add more emissions and lead to a rise of 3.2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Instead of reducing, emissions between 2010-19 were around 12% and 54% higher than in 2010 and 1990. These findings show the breach in 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming compared to pre-industrial levels is certain.
From the climate crisis to air pollution, from questions of the development-environment tradeoffs to India’s voice in international negotiations on the environment, HT’s Jayashree Nandi brings her deep domain knowledge in a weekly column
The views expressed are personal
As widely expected, French President Emmanuel Macron has emerged the winner in the decisive second round of the presidential elections held on April 24 by beating far-Right candidate Marine Le Pen by a margin of around 16 percentage points. This may be less than the 30 percentage points he beat her by in 2017, but it is quite convincing given that opinion polls predicted a closer race. In so doing, Macron has achieved the distinction of being re-elected for a second term, something no French president has managed to do since 2002. Macron’s win will be greeted with a collective sigh of relief in most world capitals. In the European Union headquarters in Brussels, the sigh will be palpable.
For the far-Right leader Marine Le Pen, this was arguably her best chance of making it to the top job. However, despite considerable softening of her image and the extremist leader Eric Zemmour making her sound almost moderate, Le Pen could not appeal to the broader French electorate. The result may have disappointed Le Pen, but she has already vowed to lead her party in the legislative elections in June. Either way, the far-Right is here to stay in France and will make its presence felt even more in the future.
For Macron, the real challenge of governing France begins now.
First, the abstention rate was at an all-time high of 28%. Most of those who abstained did so because they could not choose between what they considered the “cholera” and the “plague.” Macron, therefore, has the difficult task of co-opting these voters into his scheme of things.
Second, Le Pen won something close to 42% of the vote in the second round. This is too significant a percentage of the electorate to ignore. Le Pen’s flock will have to be politically neutralised by Macron.
Third, and perhaps most important, the voting pattern in France in these two rounds of the presidential election reveals a fractured polity and a divided nation. It falls on Macron to do everything in his power to unite the country behind his political, economic, and social agenda. Or else, the French, with their famous predilection for taking to the streets, can potentially make Macron’s task of governing France very difficult.
The immediate task before Macron is to win a majority for his party in the parliamentary elections scheduled to take place on June 12 and 19 to elect 577 members of the French National Assembly. The French parliament is bicameral, with a national assembly (lower house) and a senate (upper house). While it is true that the French president has more powers than the leader of any other European country, it is nevertheless crucial for him to have a working majority in the national assembly to implement his agenda.
After all, the national assembly performs the dual functions of legislation and control over the executive. In the parliamentary elections held in June 2017, Macron’s party plus his ally won a whopping 60% of the vote, ensuring 350 seats in the lower house of 577. This allowed Macron to govern without any problem from the Opposition. This time, the biggest imponderable is whether the French electorate will hand Macron this kind of a majority again in the parliamentary elections.
Parties such as Jean-Luc Melanchon’s France Unbowed may do exceptionally well in the parliamentary elections, complicating Macron’s legislative agenda. The big question is also how well the far-Right parties of Le Pen and Zemmour fare in the June elections. Traditionally, they have fared badly in parliamentary elections. Could it be different this time around? If Macron’s party fails to win a working majority, then he will be forced into a “cohabitation” with a prime minister belonging to a different political party, making governance that much more difficult.
The economic and social challenges facing France are formidable. Marine Le Pen could never have garnered over 40% of the vote, if she had not focussed on the cost of living. Macron will need to tackle this issue head-on.
France has one of the most significant numbers of Muslims within its territory, and radical Islamism has always been a problem. He will have to deal with this problem with sensitivity and deftness. Immigration was certainly an issue for a significant portion of the electorate, and Macron will need to allay their concerns. The big question is what Macron does with his agenda for change, particularly the increase in retirement age and pension reform. Will he seek a referendum on the subject?
In foreign policy, Macron will ensure continuity with a steady hand. France and Germany will continue to provide the ballast for the “EU Project” and Macron and Germany’s Olaf Scholz will continue to lead the EU in areas such as policy towards Russia and China. India has every reason to be delighted at Macron’s re-election. When I was ambassador to France in June 2017, the first overseas leader to visit Macron in Paris after his election was the Indian Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi. I will not be surprised if PM Modi visits France soon to congratulate Macron and discuss the future of the Franco-Indian strategic partnership. Issues such as defence, the climate crisis, cyber security, connectivity, and the Indian Ocean region will figure high on the agenda for cooperation between the two countries.
Mohan Kumar is India’s former ambassador to FranceThe views are personal.
The 2+2 Dialogue between United States (US) secretary of state Antony Blinken and secretary of defense Lloyd J Austin and India’s defence minister Rajnath Singh and foreign minister S Jaishankar on April 11 provided a platform for the two countries to reaffirm the strength of their “partnership” at a time when the India-US relationship has been under pressure due to India’s neutral position on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
A collaborative tone for the dialogue was set by President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who, in their hour-long virtual summit, stressed their commitment to working together on a range of issues. Following the summit, Biden tweeted, “We committed to strengthening our defense, economic, and people-to-people relationship together to seek a peaceful and prosperous world.”
While the official communications were positive, the communication before and after the meetings was not quite so much. Before the dialogue was convened, Indian American Daleep Singh, the deputy national security advisor for international economics and deputy director of the National Economic Council warned New Delhi of consequences if it engaged in sanctions-busting trade activities with Russia. Predictably, Singh’s remarks were not well received in India. Jaishankar has repeatedly pointed out that India’s dependence on Russian oil pales in comparison to that of Europe.
Several factors influence India’s not speaking out regarding Russia’s war on Ukraine: A large section of Indians remember how the erstwhile Soviet Union, Russia’s predecessor, consistently sided with India at many critical junctures during its various conflicts with Pakistan, and New Delhi’s reliance on Moscow for much of its defence needs makes Russia a valuable resource provider for India.
Since the end of the Cold War, India’s relationship with Russia had not been an issue in its bilateral relations with the US. This will no longer be the case going forward. It was against this backdrop that the 2+2 Dialogue was held in Washington.
Despite the camaraderie during the get-together, differences between the two sides did come out after the session. Following President Biden’s summit with PM Modi, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said, “The President has made clear that he does not believe it’s in India’s interest to accelerate or increase imports of Russian energy and other commodities.”
Though they did not discuss human rights during the dialogue, the two sides sparred on the sidelines on the issue. Blinken voiced concerns about India’s recent human rights record on April 11, stating: “We regularly engage with our Indian partners on these shared values [of human rights] and to that end, we are monitoring some recent concerning developments in India including a rise in human rights abuses by some government, police and prison officials.”
On April 13, just before returning to New Delhi, Jaishankar said: “People are entitled to have views about us…. We also are entitled to have views about their lobbies and vote banks. We will not be reticent. We also have views on other people’s human rights, particularly when it pertains to our community.”
These remarks by the top diplomats of the two countries are a clear indication that the issue of human rights remains on the table for both nations. So, too, does India’s relationship with Russia and its stance on Ukraine.
Nonetheless, the successful conclusion of the 2+2 Dialogue demonstrates that India and the US can work together despite their differences in these key areas. There was a concern among some in both New Delhi and Washington that India’s position on the Ukraine war might jeopardise Quad — the four-nation group of democracies that also includes Australia and Japan. Now, after the talks, one can safely say that Quad is alive and well.
Frank F. Islam is an entrepreneur, civic leader, and thought leader based in Washington DC The views expressed here are personal
One of the more underreported success stories of the Narendra Modi government has been scripted in India’s Northeast. A lower level of violence, a drop in civilian killings, many accords with militant organisations, and a faster pace of development in the seven states in the last five years are a testimony to the government’s special attention to the region since it assumed office in 2014.
One constant source of criticism in the Northeast against the central government was the widespread imposition of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (Afspa), 1958, in insurgency-prone areas.
The Act, first promulgated under the British in 1942, but later passed by Parliament in 1958 after a Naga group rose in armed revolt, has been applied in almost all Northeastern states with varying geographical spread and durations.
In 1990, Afspa was also extended to Jammu and Kashmir. Imposed in areas declared disturbed under the Disturbed Areas Act, Afspa came to acquire negative connotations. However, any discussion on the law was often clouded by emotions, distrust, and even a lack of understanding about the procedure under which Afspa is applied.
In this context, the recent step taken by the Union home ministry under Amit Shah in announcing the removal of the Disturbed Areas Act from several districts of Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh must be welcomed. The removal of the Disturbed Areas Act from these areas automatically renders Afspa inoperable in these districts.
The new initiative comes on the back of improved law and order and rapid development in several areas of the region. Now, the majority of Assam districts will be free of the tag. In Nagaland, 15 police stations under seven districts will be free of Afspa. It is likely to be withdrawn further from other parts of the state in a phased manner. Similar steps have been taken in Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh. Tripura and Meghalaya removed the Disturbed Areas Act entirely in 2015 and 2018.
This will mark the beginning of a more peaceful phase in the region’s history. Going by this trend, one can be optimistic about further progress in the coming years, taking care of a long-standing demand of civil society and human rights organisations to free the Northeast of Afspa.
There have been several calls to repeal Afspa. The assumption is that the cause of all ills plaguing the Northeast over several decades was Afspa and all the perceived immunity it provides to the Indian Army. However, nothing is farther from the truth. Afspa is merely an enabling act that empowers security forces to operate in insurgency-affected areas. As long as the area remains disturbed, the need for Afspa remains. It affords minimum essential legal protection to members of the armed forces to ensure the fulfilment of constitutional obligations. In addition, Afspa has provisions that the central government can sanction prosecution or other legal proceedings against personnel who act in contravention of applicable laws and standard operating procedures.
Some years ago, Afspa’s provisions came up for scrutiny before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court (Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights Vs UOI). The five-judge bench dealt comprehensively with the challenge to the legality of deployment of the armed forces in aid to civil power. The court had then unambiguously ruled that Afspa cannot be regarded as colourable legislation or a fraud on the Constitution.
The apex court said that the conferring of powers vide Section 4 of Afspa could not be held as arbitrary or violative of Article 14, 19, or 21 of the Constitution. It also allowed the armed forces to retain the weapons seized during the operations in their custody rather than hand them over to police authorities.
Similarly, just as Section 45 of the Code of Criminal Procedure disallows the arrest of public servants and as Section 197 provides immunity against prosecution, Section 7 of Afspa gives similar protection to the Army personnel. And yet, most opponents of the Afspa have chosen to either downplay or completely ignore this similarity.
So, what is the way forward?
Lifting Afspa in many areas is welcome, but the provisions of Afspa as an emergency law that empowers the Army — the nation’s instrument of last resort — must continue to remain on the statute books given the increasingly violent and uncertain times that the subcontinent is likely to face in the coming years.
Repealing it will weaken the mechanism to deal with extremist threats. When needed, it must be applied in small doses. Every country has to balance the need for a stringent law with the basic principles of ensuring human dignity and human rights.
Nitin A Gokhale lived in and reported various insurgencies from the Northeast between 1983 and 2006 The views expressed
Read in source website
It’s like this: Imagine China signing a secretive security deal with the Maldives, a group of islands, many uninhabited, located close to Indian shores.
The deal allows Beijing to deploy Chinese police and military officers to protect its companies and personnel on the islands; it also allows Chinese ships, sailing far and away from its own shores on a critical sea lane of trade, to refuel; the deal goes through because the government in Male, the capital city, is pro-Beijing though many in the political class and citizens are not in favour; the deal goes through even though New Delhi, until now, had been the “net security provider” for the islands and pumped in millions, helping to build infrastructure and public works projects.
China, for the first time — Male and Beijing say it doesn’t target any third country — has a base in the Indian Ocean, and the choice to militarise it when, not if, required.
New Delhi wouldn’t be pleased.
There's no such deal between the two countries, but that’s essentially what just happened between China and Solomon Islands — around 900 islands with around 700,000 people in the Oceania region of the South Pacific — which have signed a security deal shrouded in mist.
Australia, the net security provider roughly 2000 km away, isn’t pleased.
Neither is the United States (US), which is heavily invested in the region.
The deal between Beijing and Honiara — the first such deal China has signed in the Pacific region — not only has Australia and New Zealand fuming and fretful, but it has also sparked concern and a flurry of diplomatic outreach activities from other western countries including the US.
The basic concerns are these: China could build a naval base on one of the islands in the archipelago, which could then be used to project its naval power in the region.
Also, the agreement will have a bearing on both the Quad and the AUKUS with the countries involved — India, the US, Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and Japan — possibly having to pump in more resources and time to counter the challenge in the years ahead.
The US’s Indo-Pacific pivot just got more complicated.
The deal, championed by Solomon Island Prime Minister (PM) Manasseh Sogavare, has also disappointed regional countries, as New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern told BBC, because an agreement already exists between Pacific Island forum members called the “Biketawa” declaration, focused on members looking after their own security needs together as a region.
What’s adding to the sense of unease is the opacity of the agreement.
“Let me say this again. Foreign ministers of China (Wang Yi) and Solomon Islands (Jeremiah Manele) officially signed the inter-governmental framework agreement on security cooperation between the two countries the other day.”
“The other day”.
That was how foreign ministry spokesperson, Wang Wenbin, talked about the agreement when asked for details last week.
Nothing official is available yet other than a leaked version of the agreement,
The deal shouldn’t have come as a complete surprise: For one, the Solomon Islands switched its allegiance from Taiwan – a functional democracy which Beijing considers a renegade region -- to China barely months after Australian PM Scott Morrison’s visit to the island in 2019.
Ironically, it was his first visit to a foreign country after becoming PM.
The tide, however, had turned.
Soon after, PM Sogavare visited China and met the top leadership including President Xi Jinping.
Xi, among other things, told Sogavare: “The Solomon Islands is located in the southward extension of the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road… the Solomon Islands is welcome to join the big family of China-Pacific Island countries for cooperation”.
Australia’s national broadcaster ABC News has called the signing of the deal as Xi having “poked Morrison squarely in the eye”.
The secretive agreement has triggered worried responses and a buzz of activity with western diplomats heading to the far-flung islands.
Beijing-based defence watchers say it’s a game-changer in terms of China’s expanding naval power and what the country intends to do in the years ahead.
“Japan occupied strategic islands in the South Pacific after WWI, taking over former German colonial territories. In WW2, these island bases formed strategic jump-off points for Japanese Imperial forces to cut off Australia and the US: The resulting tussle between the Japanese Empire and the Allies (US, UK and Australia/NZ) led to the eventual Battle of Coral Sea and the Guadalcanal campaigns,” a defence expert from a south-Asian country said.
“China probably shares the same outlook: They would need bases in the South Pacific for them to break out of the first island chain and to cut off supply and shipping routes between Australia and the US, and even beyond, between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean.”
The People’s Liberation Army’ (PLA) navy’s plan to gradually expand influence across maritime regions including in the Pacific via the “island chain” theory – which was first formalised by the US navy -- has been in the works for decades.
The long-term plans for the PLA navy were drawn in the 1980s under naval commander Liu Huaqing and the political and military leadership of Deng Xiaoping.
In 1988, Deng and Liu set three governing goals for the development of the PLAN, according to the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI).
“By 2000 China would develop naval forces sufficient to defend its maritime interests out to the First Island Chain, which runs from the Kuril Islands through Japan and the Ryukyu Islands, down through the Philippines, and ends in the Indonesian archipelago,” CJ Jenner, a senior research fellow from the Washington-based Institute for China-America Studies wrote in an analysis published by AMTI in 2019.
Jenner added that, according to the Deng-Liu governing goals, by 2020 China’s maritime interests would be secured by the PLAN’s capability to command the “near seas” out to the Second Island Chain, which runs from the Kurils through Japan and the Bonin Islands, then on through the Mariana Islands, Palau, and the Indonesian archipelago with the likely embrace of Java, Singapore, and the Malacca Straits.
“By the time the PRC celebrates its centennial anniversary in 2049, the PLAN would be capable of deploying aircraft carriers with battle fleets and realising China’s national interests on a global basis.”
For the PLA, it seems to be working according to plan.
The developments in the Solomon Islands turned distinctly odd last month when Beijing shipped crates of the China-made QBZ-95 assault rifles to Honiara to be used by the islands’ police force for training.
As it turned out, they were plastic replicas. This time.
Sutirtho Patranobis, HT’s experienced China hand, writes a weekly column from Beijing, exclusively for HT Premium readers. He was previously posted in Colombo, Sri Lanka, where he covered the final phase of the civil war and its aftermath, and was based in Delhi for several years before that
The views expressed are personal
If Norway was a state in India, its population would rank it right below Himachal Pradesh. What makes a good partner is, however, not shaped by its size, but by the complementarity of interests, values, and economies. The deepening of the relationship between Norway and India over the last couple of years shows that the cooperation is mutually beneficial. I am glad to be able to visit India so soon after taking over as the Norwegian foreign minister to develop the relationship further.
Norway was one of the first countries to recognise India on its Independence in 1947. As I take this opportunity to congratulate India on its 75th year of Independence, I take pride in the stable and positive relationship we have had since then.
The rules-based international order is crucial to seek solutions to common challenges. Multilateral institutions like the United Nations (UN) have played a key role in developing the rules-based international system of cooperation between States.
Like India, Norway has benefited politically and economically from this system, and has high stakes in its survival. Norway truly values its cooperation with India in the multilateral arena. Currently, we are both faced with demanding tasks as members of the UN Security Council. Despite the challenges, both India and Norway continue to work together tirelessly to support binding international cooperation and making the multilateral system more effective and inclusive. The world needs more, not less, multilateral cooperation.
Norway is cooperating with India in the energy sector. Norway is one of the world’s largest energy exporters and an innovation powerhouse. This week, I am travelling to India with 17 Norwegian businesses, which are offering world-leading solutions in renewable energy, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and more. I am glad to be witnessing the signing of several agreements with Indian companies during my stay.
Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi’s announcement of enhanced climate goals at the Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow has made India an attractive destination for green investments and business cooperation in the energy sector. Our companies are increasingly looking to India as a market and for partnerships with Indian companies.
These partnerships are not only contributing to the energy transition in our two countries, but also using India as a platform for scaling solutions that benefit everyone. At the global level, we are extremely pleased that, together with India and over 170 other countries, the agreement on a globally binding agreement on plastic pollution to be finalised by 2024 was reached.
In addition to technology and know-how, we are investing capital in this partnership. The Norwegian government’s development finance institution, Norfund, has already committed over $140 million in India, and is looking to India for investments through its new Climate Investment Fund. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund has invested about $17 billion in India across all sectors. Trade between India and Norway doubled from 2020 to 2021, with 2022 looking promising.
The blue economy partnership is another example of mutually beneficial cooperation. Our fisheries cooperation with India started in the 1950s and has been followed by decades of joint ocean research. And since the creation of the India-Norway Task Force on Blue Economy for Sustainable Development in 2019, suggested by PM Modi, the partnership has expanded to marine pollution, ocean management, green shipping, and more.
If managed sustainably, the blue economy can deliver economic growth, new jobs, improved nutrition, and increased food security. Ocean-based climate solutions can contribute 1/5th of the greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions needed to keep the world within 1.5 degrees of warming. Through the International Maritime Organisation-Norway Green Voyage 2050 project, Norway and India are working together on low- and zero-carbon demonstration projects in the maritime industry. And our companies are building zero-emission ships together, contributing to scaling solutions to the climate crisis while creating green growth.
An integrated part of all our work is our longstanding commitment to women’s empowerment and participation, which is also the vision laid out by PM Modi. Together with our Indian counterparts, we are working to promote the political empowerment of women, the prevention of harmful practices, and women’s rights to reproductive and sexual health.
As Norway and India embark on a future journey of sustainable solutions, our complementarity will strengthen further.
Anniken Huitfeldt is the foreign minister of Norway
India has long enjoyed a profitable association with the erstwhile Soviet Union and then Russia. However, geopolitical currents have pushed Russia towards a dependent relationship with China — India’s main adversary. It appears that Russia undertook the invasion with Chinese acquiescence. Conversely, India is a member of Quad. In any future conflict with China, India and Russia will likely be on opposing sides.
India’s relationship with Russia was forged by history, geography, and armaments. The Soviet Union and then Russia were a reliable vote for India in the United Nations Security Council on the Kashmir dispute. Russia even occasionally acted as a bulwark against the China-Pakistan alliance against India, though that is bound to change now. The share of the Russian weapon systems across the Indian armed forces ranges from 70 to 90%. India’s armaments dependence is more entrenched than Europe’s energy dependence on Russia. This makes it hard to wean off in a hurry. But wean it must. India cannot afford to be dependent for its military supplies on China’s junior partner.
India’s Quad partners and other western nations could help in this endeavour. India is critical to the Indo-Pacific strategies of Quad and the European nations. A systemic update of India’s defence industry is needed for the country to be a credible counterweight to China in the region. Investing in Delhi’s defence industries is, therefore, essential to maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific.
However, India needs to avoid contradictory positions that erode its credibility, such as abstaining on votes condemning Russia’s Ukraine invasion, while maintaining a strong opposition to any future Chinese assault on Taiwan; dismissing Pakistan’s designs on Kashmir while remaining silent on the Russian annexation of Crimea and Donbas; and championing Afghan independence from Pakistan’s “sphere of influence” while not according Ukraine the same courtesy to be free of Russia’s “sphere of influence.”
Indian leaders brim with indignation on uninformed western views on the state of India’s democracy or its handling of Kashmir. Indian thought leaders must resist similar temptation in repeating Russian propaganda that free, democratic, peaceful eastern European nations joining the defensive North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance pose an existential threat to the Russian State.
Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi has ushered in the era of India’s most muscular global engagement, with a keenness to upgrade India’s defence systems.
India, the world’s largest democracy, should not fall short when freedom and democracy are attacked by an autocratic Russia backed by a totalitarian China. It is in its national interest to not be found wanting. With each new revelation of Russian war atrocities, the patience for India’s abstinence in free world capitals will wear thin.
India and partners in Quad and Europe can cement their free-world nexus by undertaking four reinforcing courses of action.
First, convey unreserved solidarity with the Ukrainian people. As a neutral country, India can lead a humanitarian relief effort. It should call for the full restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty and contribute to the rebuilding of its economy.
Second, embark on an operation with warp speed to diversify the defence industry with priority on domestic production. An international AUKUS-like initiative with India will convey a commitment by the United States and Europe to invite India into their defence industry orbit.
Third, India’s role as a leader of the free world should be institutionalised. G7 should be reconstituted as G10 with the formal additions of India, Australia, and the European Union. The new G10 would afford a formidable economic arsenal in the defence of democracies. NATO and Quad should explore collective security arrangements.
Fourth, India should expeditiously explain its position on Ukraine to the world audience. Ambiguity does not further its cause.
India should convey unequivocal solidarity with Ukraine. With China as its principal threat, India should align with the free world against the autocratic nexus of Moscow and Beijing. India and its allies should draw India out of decades of dependence on Russia and overcome its scepticism towards the West. Ukraine presents an opportunity for India to be a leader of the free world.
Kaush Arha is a senior fellow, Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy and at the Atlantic Council
The coronavirus (for all practical purposes) is almost gone. People have stopped wearing masks. Spring is here and the sunshine is lighting up our lives. But even so, we are still in some ways under the influence of the pandemic, and feverish revenge partying has no vaccine.
For one thing there is a strong sign of relief, especially among the urban young. Night clubbing is back in fashion for young people who have been cooped up for last two years. So many are making up for lost time, some travelling from the outlying regions to get to the big cities just to party all weekend. There is even a new fashion line in swimwear. Not to wear before you plunge in but to display as you lounge on the beach or even to wear when you go clubbing. It is a new hit.
That is the good news but there is also the negative. During early days of Covid, we were driven to stock up on weekly essentials by long visits to the supermarket. The hoarders certainly were right to get in the queue early. This time it is a different kind of challenge. The high prices of daily necessities have shaken people. Supermarkets are trying to prevent customers from hoarding.
Even something so simple as cooking oil. We gather that the bigger chains are restricting their buyers to just one or at most three large bottles and no more. Little did we know that a lot of our sunflower oil comes from Ukraine. Rationing almost 80 years after the last war! Yes, we have a war in Ukraine, but this was unexpected.
Meanwhile, our politics has also been intoxicated by the scandals, true or rumoured of what happened with the government ministers and especially the Prime Minister during the days of lockdown when everyone was supposed to isolate and not party raucously. Ten, Downing Street, is a large office as well as one small flat for the Prime Minister. Office parties go on all the while, but now they are being investigated by the Scotland Yard. Boris Johnson has been a target of the Opposition parties for some months now. Neither his trip to Ukraine to see the Ukraine leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy, nor his more recent trip to India to see his khaas dost Narendra Modi, has helped him escape the censure of the House of Commons. Even his own Party members are beginning to peel off.
So while Boris was in Delhi, the British Press was more interested in his Partygate follies than in Ukraine or trade treaty with India. Our newspapers had nothing to report about the glorious spring in Delhi or Ahmedabad. The Press was only concerned with whether Boris had a drink breaking the lockdown rules.
Boris had hoped he could persuade his party in the House of Commons to vote down the Opposition proposal and support instead his preferred version which would have postponed the inquiry farther into the future. Alas that was not to be. His supporters are peeling away. Now, with the House of Commons having voted for an inquiry by the privileges committee, the show will run and run for three months at least. At the end of it, given his run of good luck so far, Boris may yet get away with it. But there is no telling. We are going to have a long hot summer come what may.
We have no great luck with cricket either. The English Test team has been losing in Australia and West Indies. The old captain Joe Root has been fired and a new team has to be selected with the coach and other officials in place. The only consolation is that the women’s team is doing better than the men’s team. Not only in cricket but in football as well. Women’s teams are attracting big crowds while with men’s teams only the Premiere League teams are attracting fans. Maybe we will change our watching habits and watch women’s sports more avidly. In the meantime, the World Cup for soccer is coming up this winter in Qatar. That may yet be a human rights boycott story. No one is sure as yet.
All this palaver is not helping the celebration of the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee. She has just this week celebrated her 96th birthday. There are plans afoot for all sorts of parties but it depends on whether she will be in public joining the fun or sitting quietly somewhere resting and remembering her life. We have a long week of celebration in June. Let us hope we get through that in a jolly way whatever may happen to whoever is the Prime Minister.
The affiliates of the Sangh Parivar have often been seen raising the topic of introducing a uniform civil code (UCC), the latest being Uttar Pradesh deputy chief minister Keshav Prasad Maurya. According to him, the Yogi Adityanath-led government is “thinking seriously” about implementing it in the state.
Uttarakhand’s CM Pushkar Singh Dhami, who is into his second term after the recent Assembly elections, has decided to set up a committee to come up with a draft code.
A UCC essentially governs marriage, divorce, inheritance and adoption of the citizens. It is not without reason or constitutional mandate that the talk about a UCC is often initiated. Article 44 in Part IV of the Constitution, which lists the directive principles of state policy, mandates that “the state shall endeavour to secure all citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India”.
Every law has its roots in society, and is the reflection of a felt need. The Constitution-makers did make the criminal law, the British-era Indian Penal Code, 1860, common to all, but chose to keep the UCC as an idea to cherish and chase by the future generations, for it has to factor in the diversity of its people, their customs, religious practices and mindsets that prevailed then.
The idea, however, remained a non-starter, despite India celebrating 75 years of Independence and the Constitution turning 72 years old. Given the fact that a law, even criminal one, could imperil the lives of innocent people in a vast and diverse country like India unless carefully drafted, one cannot blame governments for their failure to come up with a UCC. It may be remembered that a well-intentioned criminal law, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, has resulted in the incarceration of tribal youth who married at a younger age per the custom of their communities. If a criminal law can make people who are not well-versed with the workings of a modern constitutional democracy its victims, then a civil code can do even more harm unless it did not take into account the various practices that govern our communities.
However, it is no one’s argument that a progressive society can afford to allow its people to depend on separate laws for its civil engagements forever, and hence it is legitimate to spare a thought to the uniform civil code.
If the BJP which runs Union government is serious, then it must first take a leaf out of its own book as to how it went about formulating the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, a path-breaking legal reform in independent India introduced with a larger consensus, instead of allowing its minor players to do the kite-flying.
Nothing can be more ludicrous than every state thinking of having its own UCC, which turns the very idea of having one on its head. The NDA dispensation, too, should not give in to its propensity to use its every move as a tool to further its divisive agenda. It must, instead, initiate a national debate after assuring every stakeholder that they will be heard. It must allay fears that the UCC will not be a ploy to run roughshod over certain cultural practices. Let the conversation begin.
Rishabh Pant, the young captain of Delhi Capitals in the IPL, is getting away after murdering the spirit of cricket. Fining him a day’s wages for disrupting the climax in the match against Rajasthan Royals by sending a member of his coaching staff on to the ground to argue with the umpires is akin to telling Elon Musk to forfeit one Tesla car for breaching regulations. Hitting a multimillionaire IPL cricketer in the purse is futile.
The least the match referee, who symbolises the disciplinary process when he stands as the guardian of the spirit of the gentleman’s game, should have done was to ban the youngster for a few matches. While Pravin Amre cops a one-match ban, the captain who ordered him to walk on to the arena gets a small pinch in the pocket. Far from behaving like a cricketer with a bright future who is being talked about as a prospective captain of Team India, Pant has shown himself to be an immature player who lost his cool in the heat of the battle.
Matches have been forfeited before because of biased umpiring or danger to the life and limb of batsmen. The great Bishan Singh Bedi surrendered a Test match at Sabina Park in Kingston, Jamaica, because some of his batsmen were in hospital already and others were likely to go there if the match continued. Once again, Bedi called off an ODI in Pakistan in 1978 after Sarfaraz Nawaz bowled an over of very short bouncers to Gundappa Viswanath, a batsman of stature but not height. Extraordinary circumstances then seemed to justify such action in a different era of the game.
In the age of universally televised cricket in which he should be setting an example to youth following the game avidly, Pant desecrated the code of cricket.
The least his franchise should do is to stand him down as captain for a couple of games if, indeed, they do not support what Pant did, as the assistant coach Shane Watson has averred. Pressuring umpires, who are already under stress with a third umpire watching images from the eagle eye of all-seeing TV cameras, is just not on. As the metaphor says it best — “It’s not cricket.”