Editorials-August

Selected Editorials of Importance  The need to measure poverty (The Hindu)

In June 2012, the government of India appointed a committee to take a new look at the methodology for measuring poverty. The committee submitted its report towards the end of June 2014. The purpose of this article is to briefly explain the approach taken by this committee.  Growth is not the sole objective of economic policy. It is necessary to ensure that the benefits of growth accrue to all sections of society. Eradication of poverty is thus an important objective.

 Human beings need a certain minimum consumption of food and non-food items to survive. However, the perception regarding what constitutes poverty varies over time and across countries. Nevertheless, there is a need for a measure of poverty. Only then will it be possible to evaluate how the economy is performing in terms of providing a certain minimum standard of living to all its citizens. The measurement of poverty, therefore, has important policy implications.

History of studies

In India, we have had a long history of studies on the measurement of poverty. There are, in fact, many approaches to it. Some analysts focus on deprivations in terms of health, education, sanitation or housing, but there are many problems associated with this approach including difficulties in aggregating deprivations on several scores derived from different sources. Perhaps the best approach is to look at it in terms of a certain minimum consumption expenditure per person or preferably per household. Any household failing to meet this level of consumption expenditure can be treated as a poor household. This minimum level of consumption expenditure can be derived, in turn, in terms of minimum expenditure on food and non-food items.

Minimum food consumption is related to fulfilling certain nutritional standards. However, minimum non-food consumption is more problematic. Based on the analysis presented in the report, the monthly per capita consumption expenditure of Rs.972 in rural areas and Rs.1,407 in urban areas is treated as the poverty line at the all-India level. This implies a monthly consumption expenditure of Rs.4,860 in rural areas or Rs.7,035 in urban areas for a family of five at 2011-2012 prices. This level of private expenditure has to be seen in the context of public expenditure that is being incurred in areas like education, health and food security. The actual ‘well-being’ of the household will be higher than what is indicated by the poverty line. Based on the methodology outlined in the report, the poverty ratio at the all-India level for 2011-2012 is 29.5 per cent. Working backwards, this methodology gives the estimate for 2009-2010 at 38.2 per cent. This is in contrast to the 21.9 per cent as estimated by the Tendulkar Committee methodology for 2011-2012 and 29.8 per cent for 2009-2010.
 

Rural and urban poverty baskets

Are there conceptual problems associated with the new poverty line? Our group has gone back to the idea of separate poverty line baskets for rural and urban areas. This stands to reason. This is also consistent with the way we have derived the poverty line. Basically, there are three components in the poverty line: the food component, the normative level of expenditure for essential non-food items such as education, clothing, conveyance and house rent, and behaviourally determined expenditure for other non-food items.

The group has been criticised for going back to calorie norms. The new poverty line is not limited only to calorie intake but also extends to fats and proteins. It is true that there is no direct correlation between calorie and nutrition. There are many other factors which contribute to nutrition. But taken in conjunction with other factors mentioned in the report, relating minimum food consumption to calorie, fat and protein requirements appears to be a reasonable approach. Without such norms, the minimum level may turn out to be arbitrary. The Tendulkar Committee itself did not abandon calorie norms. It took the urban poverty basket as given. It also claimed that the poverty line it recommended ultimately satisfied the norms of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. The introduction of norms for certain kinds of non-food expenditures by our group is an innovation. It is a simple recognition of the fact that these expenditures constituted a significant part of total consumption. In the absence of any other normative criteria, the median fractile class expenditures were treated as the norm. In fact, non-food consumption as a proportion of total consumption has been steadily rising. That is why the group decided to take a new look at the basket rather than updating the old basket for price changes.

The concept of poverty

Poverty is easy to perceive but difficult to be precise about. There is a need to distinguish the rural poverty line from the urban poverty line and then a need to work out State-specific poverty lines. While viewing the problem over time, the appropriate price index also becomes an issue. All of these have to be done in a consistent way. That is why though conceptually simple, measuring poverty is not that easy. The frequently used World Bank measure of poverty has no strong methodological roots. Instead of going for an absolute poverty line, one can also think in terms of relative poverty and define the poverty line in terms of median or average consumption expenditure. The group has done that and reported the results in one of the chapters.

The methodology adopted by the new group on poverty is based on sound principles. However, as the group has clearly indicated, this measure is not considered as an appropriate basis for determining entitlements under various programmes. Each programme that focusses on a particular kind of deprivation may have to choose that criterion which is most appropriate. But to obtain a general picture of progress in the country, a suitable measure on poverty is useful. Poverty is not the same as hunger. Hunger is far worse. Nor does the poverty line mean a comfortable standard of living. It represents the absolute minimum. Obviously, policies should work towards not only reducing the number of people below that line but also ensuring that people in general enjoy a much higher standard of living.  Numbers do indicate that the poverty ratio in India is coming down, even though it may remain at a high level. Policymakers must continue to follow the twofold strategy of letting the economy grow fast and attacking poverty directly through poverty alleviation programmes.

Fifth column: A new direction (The Indian Express)

For decades, we have heard prime ministers lie to us about India’s ‘greatness’ on Independence Day. This August 15, for the first time, we heard a prime minister remind us that although we are capable of being a great country, we are not there yet. We have a long, long way to go. Narendra Modi reminded us of things we usually ignore or lie to ourselves about. We like to excuse our most obvious shortcomings on the hollow justification that as a ‘poor country’, we can hope for no better. In our hearts we know the truth, but have got used to pretending on occasions like Independence Day that our Bharat is truly ‘mahaan’. So it came as music to my jaded ears to hear the Prime Minister remind us of all the things we like to disregard. He reminded us of how shamefully we treat our women, of the sickening squalor of our cities and towns, of our inability to compete with other countries because of bad governance, and of our shameful failure to eliminate poverty. When he finished speaking, I found myself more moved than I have been by any other speech given from the ramparts of Red Fort. And I have heard many.

  When I sat down to analyse why I was so moved, I realised it was because it was the first time ever that I have heard a prime minister tell Indians what they can and must do for India. The first time that a national leader has not told us that he will bestow upon us everything we need, and that all we have to do is sit back and receive. As an implacable opponent of Nehruvian socialism, it pleased me to hear the sound of its death knell. And to hear that the ultimate bastion of central planning, the Planning Commission, was also seeing the end of its days. Since there are many of you out there who believe that criticising anything Nehruvian is tantamount to treason, let me explain why I despise the economic ideas on which independent India was founded. I believe Nehruvian socialism created a mindset that continues to make the average Indian believe that the government must do everything for him. Nowhere is this mindset more evident than in rural India where people would rather rot in filth than lift a finger to improve their unsanitary surroundings. And, I believe it created in our officials the sense of being masters instead of servants.

 Kudos to Mr Modi for reminding them that the word service had become meaningless.  Last week in this column, I described Modi as the first Indian Prime Minister who was not a Nehruvian socialist. In his speech he confirmed that this was true. He made it clear that the India he hopes to help create will not be an India in which poverty is glorified. He wants an India in which poverty is destroyed. He appealed to SAARC countries to wage with us this war on poverty. This is the exact opposite of the Nehruvian socialist ideal that is founded on the premise that there will always be poverty to ‘alleviate’. If poverty disappears, then how can our benign rulers throw scraps at us from their high table in the form of cheap food grain, free schools, healthcare and subsidies galore? Of course the schools do not teach and public health services heal nobody, but they are free and for this we must thank our socialist rulers.

In the name of the poor, we have kept poverty in very good health and ensured that most Indians live in the most unsanitary, unhygienic cities and villages in the world. After all, how can we waste time thinking about sanitation and civic duties when so many Indians live without enough to eat? By calling himself the country’s Pradhan Sewak, Modi sought to remind every elected representative of his primary duty: service. And, as someone who knows well that most of our elected representatives forget the people except at election time, I loved the way in which Modi has dragooned them into creating model villages in their constituencies in the next two years. They will now be forced to put their ill-deserved constituency development funds to good use. Rarely has a prime minister’s address on Independence Day indicated so clearly a change of direction. It is a change towards an India in which ordinary people participate more fully in the business of development and nation building. If just this begins to happen on a larger and larger scale, then public servants who have benefited most from the kind of socialism we have practised since Independence will soon realise that they are servants, and not masters. For now, let’s celebrate the scent of change that wafted down from the ramparts of Red Fort.

Protecting the whistle-blower (Business Standard)

A public interest litigation being heard in the Supreme Court, involving the head of the country’s premier investigation agency, has put the spotlight on protection to whistle-blowers. The provisions of the Whistle Blower Protection Act, 2011, which provides a mechanism for receiving complaints on corruption, misuse of power or discretion by a public servant, aren’t applicable to this case. The Act, notified in May this year, is yet to be effective, as its rules haven’t been framed. An overview of the laws governing whistle-blower protection under the Companies Act, 2013, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, and the Whistle Blower Protection Act, 2011, show the need for a comprehensive whistle-blower protection programme. The Companies Act, 2013, doesn’t spell out the safeguards and legal provisions to protect whistle-blowers. According to section 177 (10) of the Act, read with rule 7(4) of the Companies (Meetings of Board and its Powers) Rules, 2014, the vigil mechanism shall provide for adequate safeguards (protection) against victimisation of a person who uses such a mechanism. “The Act does not go into the details of what should such a mechanism lay down, leaving it to the company to come up with its own mechanism,” says Lalit Kumar, partner at law firm J Sagar Associates.

The existence of a vigil mechanism has to be appropriately communicated within the organisation and disclosed on the company’s website and the annual report of the board of directors. The Companies Act, however, states a firm must ensure the name of the whistle-blower is kept confidential, adding there will no prejudice such as termination of job or other unfavourable treatment against the whistle-blower. In exceptional cases, the company must provide the whistle-blower direct access to the chairperson of the audit committee, or the director nominated to play the role of the audit committee, as is the case. The Securities & Exchange Board of India has made it mandatory for all listed companies to adopt a whistle-blower policy to protect employees in case they expose any wrongdoing by the management. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, is silent on protection to whistle-blowers. However, a whistle-blower will not be liable for conviction or penalty when a person makes a complaint in “good faith”. The Whistle Blower Protection Act, 2011, seeks to provide “adequate protection to those reporting corruption or wilful misuse of discretion which causes demonstrable loss to the government or commission of a criminal offence by a public servant”. However, no action is taken on a disclosure if it does not indicate the identity of the complainant or public servant or if “the identity of the complainant or public servant is found to be incorrect”. This isn’t the case in places such as the US, the UK and Canada, which also take cognisance of anonymous complaints.

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS PROVISIONS Companies Act, 2013
 

•  According to section 177(9) read with Companies (Meetings of Board and its Powers) Rules, 2014,it is mandatory for all listed companies that accept deposits from the public to establish a vigil mechanism for directors and employees to report genuine concerns in such manners as may be prescribed.

•  According to section 177(10), the vigil mechanism under sub-section (9) shall provide for adequate safeguards against victimisation of persons, and make provision for direct access to the chairperson of the Audit Committee in appropriate or exceptional cases.

•  It has further been provided that the details of establishment of such mechanism shall be disclosed by the company on its website, if any, and in the Board’s annual report

Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

•  Lokpal Act does not mention whistle-blower protection

•  According to the government, protection for whistle-blowers is being provided through a separate law

Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011

•  The Act seeks to provide “adequate protection to persons reporting corruption or wilful misuse of discretion which causes demonstrable loss to the government or commission of a criminal offence by a public servant”. The Act also seeks to ensure punishment for false or frivolous complaints

•  According to the law, a person can make a public interest disclosure on corruption before a competent authority, which is at present, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)

•  The government, by notification, can appoint any other body also for receiving such complaints on corruption, the Act says
  ACTION AGAINST FALSE OR FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINTSCompanies Act, 2013

•  In case of repeated frivolous complaints filed by a director or an employee, the Audit Committee, or the director nominated to play the role of Audit Committee, may take suitable action against the concerned, including reprimand

Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

•  Section 46 of the Lokpal Act states that whoever makes any false and frivolous or vexatious complaint under this Act shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or fine up to Rs 1 lakh

•  Further, such person shall be liable to pay compensation to the public servant against whom he made the false complaint, in addition to bearing the legal expenses for contesting the case

Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011

 The Act, however, lays down punishment of up to two years in prison and a fine of up to Rs 30,000 for false or frivolous complaints• Further, according to sub-section (6) of Section 4, no action shall be taken on a disclosure if it does not indicate the identity of the complainant or public servant or if “the identity of the complainant or public servant is found to be incorrect” Jagvinder S Brar, partner (forensics), KPMG in India, says this is one of the weakest points in the Act. “In our experience, about half the whistle-blowers prefer to remain anonymous. While the Act mandates the “competent authority” will keep the complainant’s identity confidential, it is unlikely all would-be whistle-blowers will trust this provision,” he says. The Act does not protect the complainant from prosecution if that individual was somehow associated to the illegal act. “Whistle-blowers are often insiders who may have played some role in the corrupt acts. These individuals are more likely to make voluntary disclosures when offered legal immunity, protection or leniency from prosecution, which the Act does not provide,” says Brar. Legal experts say it is important to codify in employment-related laws the provisions relating to protection of a whistle-blower against retaliatory action. Also, there is no provision in the Act for providing guidance and counselling to whistle-blowers. The Act provides for jail time and fine in cases of false, incorrect or misleading disclosures. “The parliamentary committee that had scrutinised the Bill had observed the quantum of punishment wouldn’t only be a major deterrent for prospective whistle-blowers, but also increase the possibility of misuse of this provision,” says Chakshu Roy, head (outreach), PRS Legislative Research. This Act doesn’t explicitly define victimisation and acts of victimisation of whistle-blowers. Brar says though the Act might have the right intentions when it comes to curbing corruption and encouraging whistle-blowers, as of now, its execution is a concern.

Doing more on climate (The Hindu)

Climate change talks are poised at a critical stage before the Conference of Parties meets in Paris in 2015 to finalise a new treaty, and India’s alliances with developing countries assume significance at this point. Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar has been stressing on funds from the first world for the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and also on scaling up targets in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and its quick ratification. In line with this, the recent BASIC (Brazil South Africa India China) ministerial meeting has once again called on the developed countries to walk the talk on funding and emission cuts, but going by past experience some advanced countries are not going to abide by this.

 Already Japan and Australia have scaled back their promises on emission cuts, and funds for technology transfer, adaptation and mitigation are nowhere in sight. The BASIC meet did not throw up any new thought or action plan and reiterated what the developing countries have tried to do for the last 20 years. As a pressure bloc, BASIC despite its cloak of togetherness seems a divided house, and it is perceived by some to be losing its significance in terms of climate talks. Differences in BASIC on various issues have prompted India to side more strongly with yet another group called the Like Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs), which is expected to meet soon.

 While countries such as the United States are not even signatories to the Kyoto Protocol, there is a real danger that more first world nations will renege on their historical responsibility to fund capacity-building and other critical measures in the developing countries vis-à-vis climate change. Now more than ever, there is a need for India to emphasise along with other countries the need for strong commitments on emission reduction and operationalising the GCF. India has already announced a voluntary mitigation goal of reducing the emissions intensity of its GDP by 20-25 per cent over 2005 levels by 2020, but it also needs to review its commitments and, like the rest of the world, do more.

The BASIC meet stressed that the 2015 outcome in Paris should be comprehensive, balanced, equitable and fair — but so far nothing has been fair in the climate negotiations. One of the BASIC countries, China, has emerged as a major emitter, and despite its emphasis on alternative energy and mitigation it still relies heavily on coal for energy. With little commitment to emission cuts or funding adaptation and technology transfer in the poorer countries, the world is moving towards a new climate treaty which seems fraught with contention already. In this light, India’s role and alliances, and its emphasis on equity and common but differentiated responsibilities, could be a game-changer.

Darkness at noon (The Asian Age)

Kashmir’s history is dotted with natural calamities and man-made disasters. And over the centuries the people of Jammu and Kashmir have perfected the art of rising from the ashes. They have seen famines and epidemics, floods and earthquakes, blazes and mayhem, organised violence and massacres, forced and voluntary migrations, incarcerations and worse. In my life, spread across half-a-century, I have seen fellow Kashmiris caught in the midst of many major crises. And once again they find themselves in a very difficult situation — the worst floods in 111 years, caused by five days of incessant rains and a series of cloudbursts, have thrown life out of gear in Srinagar as well as most other parts of the Valley and Jammu division Just yesterday, my 18-year-old daughter Umme Kulthum was telling her grandmother, “Amma, I haven’t seen such horrible conditions before.” To which my mother, who turned 83 in June, replied, “Even I haven’t witnessed such an awful situation in my whole life.”

The flood of 1903 was grave. Breaking all earlier records, Jhelum was at its ferocious worst. In the following century, the otherwise calm river which drains the entire Kashmir Valley became a curse.
Memories of it came back on September 7 evening, when Jhelum was overflowing at many places. Strong currents had already caused as many as 16 breaches in the river embankment along a stretch of less than a kilometre in the east of Srinagar, inundating vast areas. Chenab, Tawi, Lidder and almost all other rivers across the state were also flowing above the danger mark.
The death toll had already crossed 160 and, after visiting some of the partially marooned areas and meeting affected people, I was about to file my copy. The survivors had their fingers crossed as there was no news from the south of the Valley, the worst hit till then. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had just returned to Delhi after undertaking an aerial survey of flood-affected areas and holding meetings with officials in Srinagar and Jammu to assess the situation.

I was receiving frantic calls from friends and colleagues from Delhi, giving names and details of stranded family members and friends. And then suddenly I discovered that everything had gone quiet — my mobile phone, landline, Internet. Nothing was working. The special broadcast by Srinagar station of Radio Kashmir (AIR) was the only source of updates on the flood situation. By evening that too went off air as the overflowing waters of Jhelum flooded its premises, and it inundated Doordarshan’s Srinagar station. An official of the state’s irrigation and flood control department assured me that the level of Jhelum will start receding by 6 pm. “Next three to four hours are crucial. After that it will start receding,” he said. But the situation turned from bad to worse.

 The river was flowing 12 feet above the danger mark of 17 feet at Ram Munshi Bagh, a kilometre from our workplace. The alley outside our office and the nearby Residency Road were already under more than three feet of water. People living in Raj Bagh, Jawahar Nagar, Gogji Bagh and Wazir Bagh, along the southern shore of Jhelum, were being asked through mosque loudspeakers to leave. Soon the local police stations activated sirens to announce emergency.

Many people, clutching copies of the Quran, did as they were told. Some did not take the warnings seriously. Thick dark clouds had reduced visibility considerably. And with electricity lines having snapped the previous evening, people were using cellphone torches to walk through the muddy flood water. It was not any different from what is known locally as “mandnein sham” (darkness at noon). During the next few days, almost every household in our locality and neighbourhood received one or two families from flooded areas. Relief camps were set up in Kashmir University campus, government schools, community centres, even under-construction hotels. Resident students of Kashmir University and the nearby National Institute of Technology were working round the clock as volunteers. A group of doctors also turned up to treat the sick. People were donating

money, food, clothes, blankets, etc. Langars had been set up in different localities. While walking down the four-km road from Lala Ded Memorial Centre near Nai Sadak to Bahuri Kadal in central Srinagar, I saw about 30 community kitchens serving people food and beverages. I also saw JKLF’s Yasin Malik and Kashmir’s chief Muslim cleric Mirwaiz Umar Farooq actively involved in relief work. PDP’s Altaf Bukhari had offered his house and nearby multistorey office complex as shelter to the flood-affected. I was standing with flood sufferers on Budshah bridge on September 10, when an IAF helicopter dropped half a dozen food packets. People threw the packets in the Jhelum.

They were angry over official apathy and the “biased” and “discriminatory” attitude of the armed forces. While people didn’t deny that the Army and the IAF were carrying out massive rescue and relief operations, when no one from the administration could be seen around, they questioned the wisdom behind categorising people in distress. “Their first priority was to rescue their own men and other security forces... Tourists were taken out next and then came the turn of seasonal labourers and other non-locals, whereas common Kashmiris were left to the mercy of God,” they complained. Likewise, resources available with the state government machinery were utilised to rescue its functionaries and their families on priority basis. Dr Farah Shaffi told me she had two patients operated upon under candlelight at Lala Ded Women’s Hospital. “There was no water or food available for patients or attendants.

 The canteen, storerooms, pharmacy all were under water... Earlier, after several requests, DC Srinagar Farooq Shah briefly visited the hospital, but he left saying, ‘Leave it all to God... everything will be alright’. Soon we had to evacuate patients to the upper floors of the hospital.” Three days later even doctors abandoned the hospital, leaving patients to god’s will. The most difficult stage is over. As people piece their lives back together, nothing may be certain except one thing: Their faith in politicians, particularly those in power, has been shattered.

The poor parrot (The Indian Express)

Satyananda Mishra, a bureaucrat who ascended the dizzy heights of the proverbial greasy pole to become secretary, department of personnel and training, and chief information commissioner, recently raised serious and important questions about the competence and accountability of the CBI (‘This parrot can’t be set free’, IE, September 9). Prior to that, speaking at a Civil Service Day function last year, he mentioned the auctioning of senior positions in government to the highest bidder.

Obviously, no one bothered to ask him what he had done to either advance the course of virtue in the CBI or help prevent the vice he was railing against. Of course, I suppose he was merely a helpless bureaucrat, duty bound to follow the diktats of the political executive, proper or otherwise.  With such conscientious bureaucrats at the helm of affairs, surely our much-delayed tryst with destiny is just around the corner. If only the pesky media, hysterical civil society, activist judiciary, corrupt politicians and bumbling cops could be kept at bay, the guardians of the Indian republic, the omniscient and omnicompetent IAS, would have delivered us to the promised land. Or better still, delivered the promised land to us.

There is no doubt that recent reports in the media centring around a visitors’ diary supposedly maintained at the residence of the CBI director, along with a PIL filed in the Supreme Court, have caused a great deal of controversy and called the credibility of our premier investigating agency into question. Predictably, the powerful vested interests whom the agency has been called upon to investigate in recent times have begun a collective chorus: We told you so. Mishra appears to be their vanguard. He has taken this issue as a peg to resuscitate old arguments that were advanced to stifle police autonomy and professionalism, and presented them as sparkling new insights.

This is not an attempt to defend or attack the conduct of the CBI chief. The matter is before the Supreme Court and I am sure it will take all factors related to procedure and propriety into account before pronouncing its verdict. But to use this episode to make a case to curtail the persistent need for greater professional and administrative autonomy for the CBI is to throw out the baby with the bath water. It is a fiction and a fantasy that all right-thinking citizens must actively resist. An efficient, autonomous and transparent CBI is absolutely essential to fight the menace of corruption and restore public faith in the rule of law, a foundational principle of not just our Constitution but of any society with democratic aspirations.

The bias with which Mishra approaches the issue is apparent with the liberty he takes with facts. He claims that no recruitment has been done at the DSP level “for more than two decades”. Funny, I remember training with direct DSPs of the CBI in 1997. For a former secretary, DoPT, to be unaware of simple facts such as these shows both ignorance and disdain of basic information related to the CBI. He then goes on to question the competence of IPS officers to supervise investigations involving complex financial crimes. One wonders what Mishra did as secretary, DoPT, to bridge this competence-deficit in the CBI. Given that, until recently, IPS officers were denied an equal opportunity to go for courses that would enhance their skills in areas relevant to them, Mishra’s observations are hypocritical, to say the least. On a lighter note, IPS officers in the CBI are as competent to investigate these crimes as IAS officers manning key policymaking positions are to commit them. Mishra’s comparison of the CBI with the Central police organisations, far from proving his point, demolishes it most convincingly. A director general rank officer cannot even buy new vehicles to replace old ones without clearance from the government. So what autonomy is Mishra talking about? There is a subtle form of snobbery at play here. How can a mere police officer investigate the high and mighty of this land? How dare they? They should know their place. Fortunately, the people of India have begun to see through this charade. This is by no means an attempt to defend the CBI director. That issue is sub judice. However, improprieties alleged against an individual cannot be allowed to derail the much-needed process of reform that the CBI in particular and policing in general urgently require. The prescriptions offered by Mishra are far from a cure. They are worse than the disease.

The new stakeholders in U.K. foreign policy
(The Hindu)

Canon Andrew White, the thoroughly estimable “vicar” of Baghdad, has mooted a proposal that was almost archaic in its nobility. Interviewed by the BBC about the dwindling number of Christians in Iraq, he suggested that the British government should mount an airlift to bring 20,000 to 30,000 of them to safety in the U.K. Local churches, he said, would support them. His remarks — which produced a certain bemusement on the part of the interviewer — followed a spate of accusations from senior Anglican clerics about what they see as the government’s neglect of Christians across the Middle East. The arguments were set out most forcefully by the bishop of Leeds in a letter to David Cameron, which had been written, he said, with the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

In it, the bishop contrasted the “notable and admirable” focus by politicians and media on the plight of Iraq’s Yazidi minority with the “increasing silence about the plight of tens of thousands of Christians.”  “Despite appalling persecution,” he went on, “they seem to have fallen from consciousness, and I wonder why.” The Bishop of Manchester echoed his sentiments, saying: “There has been too much silence, for too long, from too high up.” His observation is not wrong. Only four months ago the Prime Minister was saying that the U.K. “should be more confident about our status as a Christian country” — yet he and his Ministers have been conspicuously slow to acknowledge, let alone do anything about, the expulsions of Christians from many parts of the Middle East.

 And there is one obvious reason. Less than a year away from a general election in which immigration is likely to loom large and Ukip threatens incursions into hitherto safe Tory territory, the last thing a Conservative-led government needs is the arrival of tens of thousands of new asylum seekers, however valid their case for refuge might be. This time last year, when the international outcry over Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons was at its height, the government offered no welcome for Syrian refugees, insisting that it was giving generously to provide camps in the region. A similarly hard line is evident now. Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries and even Australia are offering homes to new Iraqi refugees, but not Britain — even though our role in the Iraq war could be seen as leaving us with some moral responsibility. There is, though, rather more in play here than raw numbers of potential asylum seekers.

 The prominence of the bishops, and their stress on the plight of displaced Christians, highlights something else: the competing pressures on U.K. foreign policy from the demographic changes taking place in Britain. It is not just migration that will be at issue in the next election, but the ability of this country — with or without Scotland — to function in the future with a single, agreed set of interests abroad.

Not only a Christian country

The conflicts afflicting what might be called the greater Middle East, but not just this region, pose the question with a particular clarity. The U.K. may be a Christian country, but it is not only a Christian country, and if persecuted Christians are privileged above other asylum seekers, how might this be interpreted by the growing non-Christian (especially Muslim) part of the population? What political or social effects might it have?
Consider also the latest fighting in Gaza. Whatever the complexion of the government, the U.K. has traditionally behaved as a staunch ally of Israel. This time, the government’s sympathy for Israel’s actions went too far for SayeedaWarsi, a Foreign Office minister who is also a Muslim, who resigned from her post.

 Lady Warsi — for all the scurrilous attempts to belittle her since — represents a big electoral loss to the Conservatives, who still struggle to appeal to voters from ethnic minorities. There is a view that many, especially young, British Muslims were alienated from mainstream politics by the invasion of Iraq in 2003. That is only partly true. What they saw as Europe’s failure to protect Bosnian Muslims is where much of their disaffection began, along with an inherited identification with the Palestinian cause; it was confirmed by Iraq and is reconfirmed each time the U.K. indulges what they see as Israel’s excesses. At the same time, of course, many British Jewish voices have called for politicians to support Israel. The point is that a mixed society, in which ethnic and religious groups can have their say, is possible, and Britain has been more successful than many countries in bringing this about. But translating this into a coherent foreign policy is not so easy, as different groups, wielding different degrees of influence, want to shape it according to their own, at times mutually exclusive, interests.

Religious difference and foreign policy

This is not a uniquely British dilemma. The Turkish populations of Germany and Austria are a factor in the foreign policy decisions of those countries, and in the U.S., anti-Castro exiles who once dictated Cuba policy are being superseded by Latin Americans arguing for easier immigration. There are times too when diasporic quarrels — over Kashmir, for instance, or Sri Lanka — spill out on to British streets, in a less peaceable way than the now customary flag-waving opposite Downing Street. The extent to which religious difference — exemplified by the Christian-Muslim-Jewish divide — threatens to impinge on U.K. foreign policy, however, is new, and will only grow. It is no wonder Mr. Cameron is wary of granting the bishops’ request to save persecuted Christians before others, but his very hesitation speaks eloquently of changing times, at home as well as abroad. — © Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2014

That picture from Badaun
(The Indian Express)

The Badaun incident in May announced itself to us in the image of two teenaged girls hanging from a mango tree. From that moment, our perception of the incident has been filtered primarily through this image. To us, it spoke of rape, of members of a higher caste brutally asserting their dominance over women from a backward caste. As a global outcry against the killings broke out, the image became a symbol for sexual violence in India, a rural counterpart to the December 16 gangrape in Delhi.

Three months into the case, the CBI ruled out rape and refused to file a chargesheet against the three accused, who are now out on bail. The investigating agency is reportedly mulling over the possibility of approaching the Allahabad High Court for permission to interrogate the victims’ family once more.

What really happened on the night of May 27-28? The truth behind the killings of the two sisters in the village of KatraSadatgunj in Badaun, Uttar Pradesh, seems to be slipping deeper into a labyrinth of allegations, counter-allegations, investigations, reinvestigations, opinions, trends, statistics and facts that don’t square. But then, as Guy Debord wrote in his seminal work, The Society of the Spectacle, “In a world that is really upside down, the true is a moment of the false.” What, then, does that image say to us now?

As the case proceeds, new questions emerge and few are answered. For instance, how does one bridge the chasm between the initial post mortem report, which confirmed rape, and the forensic reports of August, ruling out rape? And who answers for the public shaming of the three accused brothers, who had to spend three months in prison, branded as ruthless rapists? Moreover, the image had come to stand for a vicious caste politics that still thrives in the Hindi heartland. The three accused brothers are Yadavs, a caste higher than the Mauryas or Shakyas, the OBC to which the girls belonged. According to the initial story, two girls were raped and then hanged for all the village to see on the morning of May 28. Their bodies became a theatre on which a gruesome act of caste domination was played out.

Yet, in the village of KatraSadatganj, the socio-economic equations between the family of the accused and the victims’ family seem to undercut certain assumptions. The 150 Yadav families form a minority in a village of 6,000 people. Known locally as the Ganga-kateves, or “those whose lands the Ganga has cut into”, they are migrants who work on fields owned by others. Their own fields, in the districts of Farukkhabad, Shahjahanpur and Badaun, have been inundated and eroded by the Ganga over the years. On the other hand, the Mauryas, though an OBC, are a land-owning majority in the village. So the feudal narrative of land-holding upper castes violating women from the voiceless lower castes — an act of violence that is also an act of socio-economic domination — does not quite fit here. Instead, the inconsistencies found in the statements of the victims’ kin throw up other disturbing possibilities. What the continuing string of investigations might throw up is anybody’s guess. The CBI has ruled out rape, but not murder, and reiterated that it gives no one a “clean chit”. The suggestions of property dispute and honour killing lurk in the background, adding to the many layers of the case. The final verdict seems a long way off and the facts of this case remain cloudy. But what burns with its own searing truth is the image – two murdered cousins and the mute spectators surrounding them. The bodies of these girls were turned into a spectacle of terror, of powerlessness, of indignity and shame. They were used to drive home the fact that the female person is expendable currency, a commodity without a will, a body that can be used or abused to suit oneself or simply make a point.

Soft diplomacy won’t solve vital issues (The Asian Age)

The decades-old unresolved boundary issue has been the monkey on the back in India-China relations, and it is impossible to know whether we are any closer to fixing the problem than we were before the special representative-level dialogue commenced years ago between the two countries to sort out the matter. During his just concluded state visit to India, Chinese President Xi Jinping said, of course, that the neighbours could seek through “friendly consultations” to demarcate the boundary — a problem “left over from history” — “at an early date”. It is hard to see what is new in this formulation, though. Prime Minister NarendraModi and President Pranab Mukherjee — at his banquet for the visiting dignitary — have pushed the importance of settling the boundary issue if bilateral relations are to blossom to their potential, but the Chinese side has, as before, responded with smug homilies.

This government, of course, should lose no time in appointing a special representative for the boundary talks. But it could also politically gear itself for a give-and-take of territory to straighten out the Line of Actual Control (LAC) to the mutual satisfaction of both sides. This means a pow-wow with other parties so that our SR doesn’t have to talk in thin air while negotiating with his Chinese counterpart. The Chinese have long harboured the idea that Indian governments are not strong enough (that they fear an Opposition backlash) to do a territory swap — for instance, agreeing to formally give away Aksai Chin (now only notionally ours as it is part of PoK and has been gifted by Pakistan to the Chinese) for Arunachal Pradesh (which the Chinese have long claimed as southern Tibet). This particular formula has been part of the diplomatically hinted-at discussion over time. But, do other swap possibilities also exist?

Two other points need to be noted as far as the boundary goes. With its other neighbours China has sorted out demarcation difficulties “that were left over from history”. So, why should India be a separate category? Two, when a top Chinese leader comes visiting, the LAC gets active with Chinese troop incursions (this time even a civilian incursion). President Xi has officially pledged $4 billion a year for five years for infrastructure and manufacturing in India. This is not a huge sum. But we should go for it, although also make sure that India is not denied investments in China and its trade imbalance with the northern neighbour is righted. MrModi was trying out “swing and dhokla diplomacy” with the Chinese leader without much purchase at this stage — a lesson for the BJP which used to make fun of former PM Manmohan Singh for not being “strong” enough in dealing with Beijing.

Constitutional duty underlined(Courtesy: The Hindu)

The Supreme Court of India has a reputation for activism and has sometimes even been accused of judicial overreach. However, it needs to be said in defence of the Court that as a repository of public trust it has been wont to step in only in conditions of administrative apathy and legislative stasis to protect basic rights and constitutional values. It has in recent times delivered some significant verdicts to save the purity of the election process.

 It directed that the ‘none-of-the-above’ option be incorporated in the voting machine, and struck down a clause that saved sitting legislators from immediate disqualification upon conviction. When the question whether a person with a criminal background can be allowed to become a Minister was referred to a Constitution Bench, there could have been the expectation that the Court would expand the existing law to bar the appointment of those against whom serious charges have been framed. However, showing wise restraint, the Constitution Bench has declined to prescribe any fresh ground for disqualification for the appointment of Ministers. Instead, it has advised the Prime Minister, as well as the Chief Ministers, to live up to the trust that the Constitution reposes in them by refraining from advising the President, or the Governors, when it comes to appointing as Ministers those with the taint of criminality.

 Even though doctrines such as implied prohibition and constitutional silence were put forward in support of a radical finding that the Prime Minister was impliedly barred from including in the Council of Ministers a person with a criminal record, the Court stopped short of doing so, correctly. Rather, it chose to invoke the principle of constitutional trust, constitutional expectation and the sanctity of the oath taken by the Prime Minister (or Chief Ministers), to counsel them against “choosing a person with criminal antecedents against whom charges have been framed for heinous or serious criminal offences or charges of corruption” as a Minister. In the ultimate analysis, the judgment may be no more than a learned dissertation on the subject.

 However, at a time when statistics of pending cases and charges against legislators are cited to assess the extent of criminality in politics, it is a timely reminder to the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers of their constitutional responsibility to preserve purity in public life. The Election Commission has already mooted some reforms to curb the criminalisation of politics, notably an amendment to make framing of charges in serious cases the basis for disqualification, instead of conviction, as it stands now. The message from the latest verdict is that these issues ought to be addressed through legislation rather than the judicial process.

Respite in Gaza (Courtesy: The Indian Express)

The declaration of a long-term ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, after 50 days of off-again, on-again fighting, has brought immediate relief to both sides of the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip. The Egyptian-brokered truce that began on Tuesday came after more than 2,200 lives were lost, mostly Palestinian. Notwithstanding the rhetoric spun by either side, the one undeniable fact is the war-weariness among both Gazan and Israeli civilians. This is the only reason for optimism about the latest truce. The deal will open some of Gaza’s border crossings and ease restrictions as well as allow in aid and building material. Indirect talks on Israel’s call for demilitarisation of the Strip, as well as Hamas’s demands for a port and an airport in Gaza and the release of prisoners will commence a month later in Cairo.

This is the same deal offered through Egyptian mediation last month, which Hamas had rejected. Irrespective of its claims of “victory”, none of Hamas’s core demands has been granted, while the outfit’s top military leadership has been decimated. With 3,00,000Gazans reportedly rendered homeless, Hamas had no option but to finally agree. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has braved strong criticism from rightwing members of his cabinet to accept the deal. Although there is reason for genuine scepticism about the ceasefire holding, Netanyahu’s angry colleagues — who preferred a “decisive” Hamas defeat — disregard the untenability of a military campaign whose use of overwhelming force and the resulting humanitarian crisis was diplomatically indefensible.

The responsibility for Gaza’s reconstruction rests on Hamas, the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Given the governing disaster that Hamas has been, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Netanyahu must leverage this moment to begin a serious dialogue that puts Israelis and Palestinians firmly back on the road to a durable peace.

Jan DhanYojana leverages the achievements of the Unique Identity Project  (Courtesy: The Economic Times)

The first tangible sign of the achchhey din (good times) promised by PM NarendraModi on the campaign trail is now here for all to see. With a big bang that bears the hallmark of successful political packaging that no intended beneficiary can miss, the new government has launched its financial inclusion project. The Jan DhanYojana leverages the achievements of the Unique Identity Project and the National Payments Corporation of India as well as the banking network's own inclusion efforts of the past. The effort will also draw in the RBImandatedRuPay service that will complement, and compete with, what Visa and MasterCard do by way of facilitating payment transactions involving the card issuing bank, the merchant and the bank that supplies the card-swipe machine. This is a huge step forward.

At the same time, this does not, in any way, obviate the need for more and more diverse players in the banking sector. Because of the high priority attached to opening new accounts by the Prime Minister, the banks might enrol a host of new customers. But banks do not have the manpower or infrastructure to service them on a regular basis. Mobile technology and an army of banking correspondents who wield mobile interfaces between customers and banks are needed to achieve functional financial inclusion. There can be no let up, in other words, on the RBI's plans to create a mobile technology-based supplement to brick-and-mortar banking.
The Congress will do well not to gripe over the government reaping the benefit of the good work done by its predecessor. That is how it should be. Its best bet is to deploy its volunteers to help people sign up for a bank account, procure Aadhaar IDs and spread financial literacy. Do not fuss over sour grapes.

 

Click Here to Buy General Awareness Magazine for SSC CGL Exam

<<Go back to Main Page