Decades after the Indian republic was founded, citizens today are worried about the increasing erosion of credibility of elected representatives who continue enjoying legislative privileges
In a democracy, citizens enjoy the privilege of casting their vote to elect representatives. In India, we elect leaders right from the panchayat level to the Parliament. The right to vote is prized and all of us are taught about it in our schools and universities. We are also reminded about this by politicians of all hues before every election. It is also a well-established fact that the Indian voter is far more mature now and knows about the “power” of his/her vote. This was proved beyond any doubt to one and all — nationally and internationally — in 1977 when the citizens unseated Indira Gandhi from her traditional family fiefdom in Uttar Pradesh and simultaneously threw her out of power at the national level by decimating her political party. A very interesting interlude followed her defeat. People had high hopes from the next Government as it was supposed to work under the astute guidance of Jayaprakash Narayan. Those, who inherited power, could not manage the Government. They were assessed unfit by the people and Indira Gandhi was brought back to power within three years. People not only pardoned her but also taught a lesson to those who could not rise above petty personal feuds as they had not “learnt to live and work together.” All this, experts say, is the essence of democracy.
Democracy shines when a humble person, setting aside all his/her woes, concerns and stress of providing the next meal, enters the polling booth and puts his/her finger on the EVM button. Who can read or visualise what clouds their minds in the shape of a better tomorrow for him/her, the family and for the little world that deserves outside support on many counts. The voter is still far from the promises made in the Constitution of India. One more election opportunity and expectations soar again. The Indian voter has also witnessed how elected representatives have often let them down on several counts. Most of them vanish for five years, take more interest in their own welfare than that of the electorate, show little concern and connectivity to their electors, give no dignity to them and after five years, return with folded hands, pleading for “one more chance.” But if one weighs the performance of elected representatives on Gandhian expectations, one would mostly be disappointed.
Winston Churchill never expected that India could manage its independence. He was convinced that Indians were unfit to govern themselves and, hence, the British had to stay on to look after them. It was not easy for him or those of his ilk to see beyond the cobwebs of the much-publicised altruistic perception that the British essentially travelled to India to “salvage the souls of the savages.” One could claim with a sense of pride and achievement that whether Churchill liked it or not, India has established its credentials in “how to make its democracy operational in its minutest nuances.” We could do it as it was not new to democratic practices of governance.
The Ganrajyas of Licchavi and Vaishali are well-known historical instances. Even at that time, education for preparing young ones with a focus on “lot learn to live together” began in joint families that accommodated four generations under one roof. It was also a ground to teaching them to respect different viewpoints and accommodate the likes and dislikes of everyone. Respect for diversity and the realisation how essential it was, were inherent in the Indian tradition. Indian culture prepares its children for a duty-bound society that respects relationships within the family and beyond.
It will be worthwhile to remember what Churchill said: “Democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all others”, which invites learned and informed deliberations even now. He viewed democratic politics not only as an “insurance” for future, against external dangers, but also against threats “scarcely less grave and much more near and constant” that threaten us all. India, like every other functional and dynamic democracy, must remain conscious of the dangers to its democracy that are emerging within the system from the very functionaries that are entrusted with the task of sustaining and strengthening democratic values.
We are all aware how traditional democratic values have confronted difficult situations in the era of globalisation and commercialisation. They stand overshadowed by emerging materialist values. On several occasions, elected representatives, including those holding positions of greater political power, find it difficult to maintain the right balance between Indian perception of democratic public life and the lure of power and pelf — glamour and glitz in a globalised free-market world.
The chinks emerging in the Indian democracy are not unexpected. Mahatma Gandhi could envision in April 24, 1922, that “As we become independent, all the defects of the system of elections, injustice, the tyranny of the richer classes as also the burden of running administration, are bound to come upon us. People would begin to feel that during those days, there was more justice, better administration and peace and there was honesty to a great extent among the administrators compared to the days after Independence.”
When I came across this part of Gandhian writing some four decades ago, my simplistic query to eminent Gandhian personalities was: How could Gandhiji cultivate such serious apprehensions about elections when we had no such experience in India? They were kind enough to enlighten me that Gandhiji had studied the British election system in-depth and could visualise what impact the taste of power produces on the majority of elected representatives.
Having elected 17 Parliaments and innumerable State Assemblies, district and panchayat level bodies, the Indian voter has seen it all. They are worried and are struggling with the increasing erosion of credibility of elected representatives, who unfortunately — exceptions apart — could not live up to expectations. They have seen how representatives coming from humble backgrounds become billionaires. They know for sure that their Minister, Chief Minister or Deputy Chief Minister could spend anywhere from Rs 5 crore to Rs 50 crore to refurbish their official bungalows. Former Chief Ministers are given huge bungalows for life with support staff. When the High Court ruled against this practice, the Madhya Pradesh Government found a new way to bypass the court’s orders. Using discretionary quota, it reallotted the same houses. Such instances could be aplenty.
The youth of today may find it difficult to believe that the members of the Constituent Assembly did not get any salary, let alone pension. They got an allowance of Rs 45 per day for the days of sitting. And they were the ones who got it reduced to Rs 40 per day in consideration of the tough economic condition of the country.
An eminent expert on the nuances of parliamentary democracy and an internationally acknowledged scholar and author of Our Constitution, Subhash Kashyap brilliantly analysed the “rise” of the Indian parliamentarian at the national level in his latest outstanding treatise, State of the Nation: Democracy Governance and Parliament. Members of the Constituent Assembly were mostly freedom fighters and men and women known throughout the length and breadth of the country for the sacrifices they made. They worked tirelessly to give India its Constitution. They gave themselves a sitting allowance of Rs 40 per day. Contrast this with their successors. The salaries and allowances of Members of Parliament Act, 1954, fixed a salary of Rs 400 per month for an MP and a daily allowance of Rs 21.
After this, there have been 29 upward revisions to the Act. There were members, whose conscience was pricked but their viewpoint was overlooked by the majority. Nanaji Deshmukh was one such exception. He raised this issue in 2004 and pointed out that “salaries and allowances of members had gone up 90 times during the first 50 years”. But his words made no impact. These upward revisions invariably got a full-throated fast-track approval from the MPs. Kashyap describes the position in its totality: “At a time when the salary of a member was only Rs 12,000 per month, Nanaji had estimated that the direct monthly expenditure on an MP was at least Rs 3 lakh per month. Himself an MP, he knew first hand. On that basis, the present monthly cost of an MP must work out close to Rs 10 or15 lakh per month or more, which could be few hundred times the per capita income of an Indian.”
Whenever issues related to MPs or State legislatures come up during discussions, I am invariably reminded of the Gandhian vision that defects of elections would weigh heavily on our people. The resilience of electors in democracy may have its upper limits. It is public knowledge that each candidate is supposed to submit a detailed statement of the expenditure incurred during election campaigns. They also know that it should always be within the limits prescribed by the Election Commission of India.
Every Indian voter would be willing to say “every one spends much more than what they claim to have spent”, exceptions apart. Is this situation acceptable? May be, someday, some young elected representative will launch a campaign against this routine practice and be hailed as a “hero” striving to restore democratic values. This could be done by some young person, who remains honest, humble and humane as the representative of people.
(The writer is the Indian Representative on the Executive Board of UNESCO)
Writer : JS Rajput
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Protests over Sant Ravidas’s shrine show that SC/STs are becoming equally aggressive about identity politics
The political import of the thousands of Dalits marching in Delhi to save the shrine of their saint Ravidas is not just about claiming rights and space in a Brahminical order or the appropriation of land as evidenced by the parks of their supreme leader Mayawati. It is about equality and comparative weighing of scales, another form of minority assertion in the face of brute majoritarianism, a question mark on different approaches to the similarity of contexts, and another manifestation of identity politics. Besides, Sant Ravidas embodies a socio-cultural idea of India that undercuts the monolithic imposition of today. Born in the 15th century in Varanasi to leather makers, he denounced the Hindu Brahminical order, challenged deity worship and worked for an egalitarian society against a Hindu Rashtra, becoming the one voice of the marginalised. And such was the power of his messages that many of his disciples even found mention in the Guru Granth Sahib of the Sikhs. None can miss the impactful swathe of this man from Varanasi, unmistakably a prime political constituency today. Nor can the appropriation of the “mandir wahin banayenge” slogan be missed as an equal claimant as the Ram temple in Ayodhya. For starters, both have historicity of belief. Lord Rama was believed to be born in Ayodhya, Guru Ravidas was believed to have visited the Chamarwala Johar in Tughlaqabad 500 years ago. Like Ayodhya, this memorial site is disputed with facts of 1950 differing from facts of 1963, the latter being accepted by the court as encroachment and, therefore, a ground for demolition. Like Ayodhya, status quo has been continuing for years with no party, and even the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), carrying out any demolition on the ground. Like Ayodhya, protesters do not want the memorial shifted as a reconciliatory move and want it on hallowed ground, asking whether Ram temple activists would agree to a commensurate shift in venue? Besides, Dalit activists argue, the construction of Tughlaqabad Ravidas temple is not on the road or creating any obstruction to the general masses. In fact, it can even be part of the Centre’s forest project and, without any other pressing logic, seems just another harassment ploy by the mainstream Right. The latest demolition follows two others by the DDA, one of Buddha Vihar at Devli Hill, and the other at Bhagwan Valmiki Mandir in Seemapuri. Which is why the Tughlaqabad incident has snowballed as a politico-cultural movement, linking both Ravidas and Babasaheb Ambedkar.
The latest round of protests also reflects the growing counter-muscularity in the Dalit leadership, being led from the front by Bhim Army chief Chandrashekhar Azad. His agitationist politics is finding resonance given the waning political influence of Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati, who, while arguing for the restoration of the temple, disagreed with the violence associated with it as diluting the key plank. Of course, Behenji still believes Azad to be a foisted creation of the BJP’s ideological parent, the RSS, and there are still a lot of theories as to whether Guru Ravidas followers are being coopted into the Hindutva sub-culture. But considering Azad’s traction among the youth across north India and a combined Dalit iconisation of all leaders, it is a constituency strong enough to negotiate with anybody, not only, as alleged by Mayawati many times, the BJP. Azad may have been deployed as a vote-cutter initially but now has a solid consolidation of Dalit youth, who are countering majoritarian celebrations by scaling up celebrations of Guru Ravidas, Valmiki, Dr Ambedkar, a signal that they do not want to be subsumed or Sankritised in their thinking. Now that the Bhim Army has started working nationwide, Dalit youth are being motivated to assert and not deny their ancestry. This is important given that the young Dalit vote could be a change-maker in the forthcoming Assembly elections. Only this week, Azad launched the Bhim Army Students Federation (BASF) and said he wanted students of Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC) and religious minorities to be aware of both their rights and duties. Clearly, he is creating a new swell in the existing discourse.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
Vatsalya, an initiative to improve the health and nutritional status of women and children, was undertaken in 22 villages in Amreli’s Rajula Block
The small boat at Gujarat’s bustling Pipavav Port bobs up and down as it waits to ferry passengers to Shiyal Bet Island barely 600 metres away. It’s a rainy morning and the waters of the Arabian Sea are beginning to turn choppy. Fifty-year-old Dakuben jumps onto the boat with ease, having undertaken the 12-minute journey innumerable times to visit her daughter in Shiyal Bet. However, this time, her visit is mired in sorrow as she is going to mourn the death of her newborn granddaughter.
Gujarat’s Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) is 30 deaths per 1,000 live births and the state ranked tenth in the country according to the NITI Aayog’s 2016 IMR report. According to statistics 69 per cent of infant deaths in Gujarat were neonatal, higher than the national average of 67.60 per cent.
Anaemia is one of the major factors responsible for the rising neonatal, infant and maternal mortality in Gujarat, especially among rural women. According to the fourth National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4) conducted in 2014-15, 54.9 per cent women in the age group of 14-49 years are anaemic and 51.3 per cent of pregnant women have anaemia.
The NFHS-4 placed Gujarat among the top 15 states with the highest incidence of anaemia as the percentage of anaemic women there was higher than the national average of 53 per cent.
The survey revealed that lack of education played a major role and anaemia was particularly high among illiterate women due to lack of awareness about health-related issues.
At 31.2 per cent, Shiyal Bet’s literacy rates are much lower than the state’s 78.3 per cent (2011 census). With the island’s female literacy rate being just 15.48 per cent, it’s no surprise that awareness about anaemia and other health issues is low.
In order to change this scenario, Vatsalya, an initiative to improve the health and nutritional status of women, children, and adolescents was undertaken in Shiyal Bet and 21 villages with similar poor health and development indicators in Rajula Block in Amreli district. Launched in 2016 by the Centre for Health Education, Training, Nutrition Awareness (CHETNA), a not for profit organisation, the three-year programme has been able to bring down undernutrition, improve antenatal and postnatal care and ensure safe motherhood.
It has also been able to break myths related to early breastfeeding, promote healthy feeding practices, timely immunization and increase access to basic health services.
The intervention, supported by Gujarat Pipavav Port Limited (GPPL) APM Terminals under their corporate social responsibility initiative, used a multi-pronged strategy including games, Q&A sessions and street theatre to engage the community. Sustained efforts, coupled with community participation helped to bring down the number of children suffering from undernutrition from 30 per cent in 2016 to 14 per cent in 2019. The number of children who attained normal body mass index also rose.
The intervention marked up registration of pregnancies by almost 42 per cent and increased the number of women receiving antenatal care, tetanus injections and folic acid tablets. A rise in institutional deliveries by 9.42 per cent was also seen at the end of the three years.
“We are committed to bringing change in the lives of marginalised communities. Therefore, empowering them with factual information and linking them to government schemes and programmes was imperative. This intervention was more challenging because we had to work in difficult-to-reach villages like Shiyal Bet and with migrating populations and communities that were isolated and neglected. But we were able to make a difference in their lives thanks to our dedicated field team, and our partnership with the community, frontline health workers and panchayat leaders,” said Pallavi Patel, Director, CHETNA.
A key to this success was the strategy to train women from the community as Vatsalya mitras (friends).This gave the community a sense of ownership and led to increased participation. So when Shantuben Chauhan became a trained Vatsalya mitra, she used her influence as an anganwadi worker (AWW) to reach out to pregnant and lactating women. Chauhan, an AWW for the last 15 years, is a popular face in Shiyal Bet. With both her marital and natal home being in Shiyal Bet, Chauhan was able to mobilise the community very effectively.
However, when the CHETNA team first visited Shiyal Bet, they found that although Chauhan was articulate and good at her work as an AWW, she, like most of the others, believed in many myths related to reproductive and sexual health. One of the biggest misconceptions she had was related to menstruation. Not only was it a taboo subject, but neither she nor her three daughters practiced menstrual hygiene. Considering that only 54 per cent of rural women use a hygienic method of menstrual protection (NFHS-4), this was not surprising. The fact that women with at least 12 years of schooling were more than twice as likely to be using a hygienic method (79 per cent) as against women with no schooling (34 per cent) meant that Chauhan who is uneducated, didn’t get access to information which could help her practice menstrual hygiene.
So the first step was to demystify menstruation. The team knew that once they were able to get Chauhan on board then she would get the others. “I was ashamed to discuss this issue. The training helped me understand why I should not be ashamed and why menstrual hygiene is important. I used the scientific information to convince other women and adolescents during Vatsalya samwads (dialogue),” recalled Chauhan.
For Vatsalya mitra Vandanaben Goswami, the training cured her of the belief that she was ‘impure’ during her periods and going to the temple or kitchen was wrong. “After I became better informed, I no longer forced my daughters to follow these customs. I used my own example to convince other women and girls,” contended Goswami.
The monthly Vatsalya samwads proved to be a good move as they helped break the ice on many ‘uncomfortable’ issues like the tradition of early marriage and family planning in all 22 villages. Besides explaining the consequences of early marriage on the health of adolescents, the importance of antenatal care and postnatal care visits for pregnant and lactating women were discussed. Also addressed were myths related to early and exclusive breastfeeding. According to NFHS-4, just 50 per cent women in Gujarat start breastfeeding in the first hour of life as recommended by the World Health Organisation, thus depriving newborns of the highly nutritious first milk, colostrums, and the antibodies it contains. In fact, about one in five children who were ever breastfed were given something other than breast milk during the first three days.
Raziben’s three children were among them. She had followed the custom of feeding her children goat’s milk or hot water mixed with jaggery immediately after birth. It was only after attending the Vatsalya samwads that she understood why this was not healthy for the newborn. This helped her initiate early breastfeeding for her fourth child born last year. Inspired by this, her friend and neighbour Manjuben also breastfed her daughter within 24 hours of her birth in June this year. In fact, there was an 22 per cent increase in early breastfeeding by the end of the project.
A big factor in the improving health and nutrition indicators was the partnership with local leaders and panchayats. Leaders like Gangabhai, the sarpanch of Kundaliya Village, played an active role in mobilizing the community and promoting awareness.
“There has been a big change in my village after CHETNA began their work. The AWWs have become more informed and active. More women are attending the monthly Mamta Divas. Earlier only 7-8 women had health cards, now 60 of them have cards. I also pay visits to support and motivate them,” he said.
While the success has been encouraging, challenges remain. Considering the entrenched patriarchy and caste barriers in Gujarat, sustaining behavioural change requires greater investment of time and resources. Only then, will no one be left behind.
(The writer is a senior journalist)
Writer: Swapna Majumdar
Courtesy: The Pioneer
While this issue is huge, it is not insurmountable. We can at least start adopting a different approach to tackle it by bringing about behavioural change
India’s reputation as one of the world’s most corrupt bureaucracies is well-documented. On the Corruption Perceptions Index, India ranks 78th and this outlook is with merit and cause. What is surprising, however, is that the civil services examination and the post of a civil servant are still one that attracts great attention and fanfare. Any aspirant, who “cracks” the examination, is treated with great respect. This is, perhaps, why lakhs of young aspirants spend days together, working towards the goal of being part of the Indian bureaucracy.
A large number of these students are from prestigious institutes like the Indian Institute of Technology and various National Law Schools, among others. As a former civil servant, I find that this desire to join the civil services, surprisingly, has not dwindled. A few pessimists would say that these young aspirants join the bureaucracy to extract their pound of flesh. As Theodore Roosevelt said, “A man who has never gone to school may steal a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad.” But levity aside, I think this is unduly harsh and frankly not true. In fact, as is true in most avenues of life, corruption in the Indian bureaucracy, too, follows the Pareto principle (also known as the 80/20 rule) that is 80 per cent of all corruption in the bureaucracy is carried out by 20 per cent of the people. The problem is to identify and punish this 20 per cent, which is bringing the entire country and the service immense shame and disrepute.
Corruption has no rigid definition, but the most common academic connotation, which defines it as “the misuse of public office for private gain”, seems to be the most appropriate. While most times the media appears to cover the “headline” scandals and/or instances of corruption — ie, the kind of scams that attract most eyeballs — rarely do we realise just what the magnitude of everyday corruption is in our country. Transparency International estimates that Indians end up paying bribes of over Rs 21, 000 crore (approx $3.5 billion) every year to access Government services. Therefore, there are different types of corruption, which differ from service to service. MR Venkatesh, a Chartered Accountant-turned lawyer, said it best in these lines, “IAS officers are after the rich people, IRS officers are after the middle class and IPS officers are after the poor. This is the new varnashrama created by the bureaucracy.” While this looks like oversimplifying a complex issue, the crux of the problem does ring true.
So what are the causes of corruption? There are a number of people who have endlessly theorised on the reasons why the Indian bureaucracy suffers from corruption. One such reason is the country’s complex legal and regulatory framework. India remains an extremely difficult place to do business. To set up or operate any business here, an entrepreneur or businessman has to jump through various hoops and then hope to gain favour from the relevant bureaucrat even before starting his/her business. It is, therefore, no coincidence that India’s low ranking on the Corruption Perceptions Index corresponds with its low position in the World Bank’s indicators for doing business.
Just to give an idea about the ease of doing business in India, according to a World Bank survey, the act of obtaining a single construction permit in India involves 27 discrete procedures, takes 162 days and costs 46 per cent of the total outlay to a construction firm building a warehouse. The keyword here is “discretion.” The minute it is brought in, the corrupt official gets an opportunity to make a quick buck.
Another reason as to why corruption persists in our country is the lack of respect towards entrepreneurs and businessmen. While we often get to hear praises about a Narayana Murthy or an Azim Premji, these examples are an exception rather than the norm. This because we, as Indians, have been encouraged to treat a business as an entity that makes money by stealing someone else’s buck. This is why any new business is looked at with suspicion first and then with admiration. While the conduct of some Indian promoters does indicate that there is some truth to this perception, our lack of openness and admiration towards entrepreneurs does the country more harm than good.
So what can be done? We need to change our attitudes towards businesses. There is no denying the fact that there should be a strict framework within which all businesses flourish. However, a strict framework does not necessarily mean that any new business ought to be treated with contempt. For example, it is important that every business operates within the realm of the law and obtains all relevant approvals. However, bureaucrats must not be given any reason to place more hurdles in helping them establish a business than those that are already present. It is evident that this Government needs cash and, therefore, is on a tax collection spree. However, in the long-run, it is impossible for any Government to collect taxes if it continues to act in a targetted and adversarial manner. It is, therefore, crucial for the Government to intimate and drive home the point to bureaucrats that their role is to facilitate the lives of honest citizens rather than acting as impediments.
Another way to mitigate the effects of corruption is to improve information dissemination and use technology. While the former is crucial and must be encouraged with zeal, the latter must be approached with greater care in a country like India where technology is really only to the benefit of a few rather than most. The best example of how this can provide benefit is the recent change in the law which allows drivers to carry scanned copies of their driving licences and RCs. Most people, however, have not heard about this change in the rules.
I have personally heard of many stories of traffic cops taking bribes from unassuming drivers merely because they tell them that they are required to carry physical copies of their documents. In such a case if people are informed about the change in rules and technology is used meaningfully, instances of bribes will automatically be reduced.
While the problem of corruption is huge, we can at least start adopting a different approach to tackle it. Bringing about a change in mindset will be of great help. This should be coupled with other innovative solutions. With these changes, I think, we will find that the problem of corruption is not as insurmountable as we think.
(The writer is former president of Jharkhand Pradesh Congress Committee)
Writer: Ajoy Kumar
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Grasslands are, perhaps, the most neglected ecosystem in the world. However, their ability to meet the climate change challenge must galvanise nations into putting them high on the conservation agenda. The Government must take note
Grasslands across the globe, especially in India, have played a silent but stellar role in reining in the process of climate change. But according to a study by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) journal, climate change, pollution and various environment alterations across the globe are changing their identity. One of the key contributions made by grasslands is their inconspicuous role in containing carbon levels in the atmosphere. It is this storage capacity for carbon that makes grasslands effective warriors against climate change.
Nearly, 30 per cent of the world’s carbon is stored in these grasslands, which makes them crucial in combating climate change. But their ecology is shifting due to human activities, says a new study.
The PNAS team conducted 105 experiments in different grasslands around the world. Each experiment focussed on particular global change factors like rising carbon dioxide, hotter temperatures and drought. Grasslands showed resilience to these factors in the first ten years of exposure, after that their species began to alter, the study said.
Half of the PNAS experiments, lasting ten years or more, showed a change in the number of species in grasslands. The study also found that their identity can change rapidly without a reduction in the number of plant species but due to the change in individual plants. Even though the grasslands are resilient towards global change for around ten years, they are vulnerable due to the fast pace of global change.
Increasingly, the scientific community across the world is forming the opinion that the role of grasslands needs to be acknowledged. They should be protected from human intervention so as to arrest their degradation. They occupy more than 40 per cent of all the ice-free land in the world. These assets of nature have sustained humans for the past 300 million years — right from the time when the first homo sapiens appeared in Africa. They also provide food and shelter to various other species, including zebras and giraffes.
Closer home, grasslands happen to be the least understood habitat of nature. There is also a paucity of effective studies on their efficacy. Still, the fact that they play a pivotal role in keeping a check on climate change cannot be ignored.
Grasslands in India share their existence with some trees, shrubs and herbs. They are found at various altitudes and in various geographical regions under different climatic conditions.
Thus, grasslands are also found in altitudes higher than 2,100 metres where the temperature is cold. Some are found at an altitude between 150 to 300 metres where the temperature is warm. Apart from the climatic conditions where the grasslands exist, there are other variants, mainly five major types. Each of these has its own characteristic. The most widespread grassland in India are the Imperata type. Our country has no dearth of diversity of greens but there is certainly a shortage of robust policies to protect them against human exploitation. This usually happens when grasslands are misrepresented as barren lands and usurped by land sharks and land mafia.
In a country where standing trees in a forest are being felled to encroach land, grasslands naturally don’t stand a chance. But matters such as these are of public knowledge. This is why it is even more puzzling that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) or even the Central Government has not come out with a forceful protection policy.
The apathy can be judged from the fact that semi-arid open areas are now being classified as wastelands, leaving them vulnerable to human intervention and encroachments. These so-called wastelands are, in fact, grasslands but neither are they given due recognition nor proper classification. The Government must not shift the burden of land requirement to cater to a burgeoning population onto the grasslands by labeling them as wastelands. Unless we course-correct, we will lose many hectares of grasslands forever.
Additionally, the wildlife that is found on these grasslands needs to be recognised and categorised so that it get chances for survival. Currently, there is little or no study or data available for the rich flora and fauna available in India. The Government must also increase awareness and recognise the support of indigenous local people so that India can benefit from their efforts to conserve grasslands. In order to do this, we must take a cue from other nations where vast savannahs have been respected and conserved over centuries. The methods and systems followed by these countries are in public domain and available to be implemented in the Indian context. Grasslands are the life breath in the fight against climate change. They must be protected and conserved.
(The writer is an environmental journalist)
Writer: Kota Sriraj
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Indian reunification is a necessary step but a step that is going to take a long time to take. Albeit, the country must be led by a strong and liberal leadership.
It is the telling silence of nations in the immediate east of Pakistan that has given Islamabad a resounding wake-up call to go beyond change in nomenclatures
International diplomacy and issues are expressed in semantics and subtle wordsmithing that require to be carefully deconstructed and deciphered for its real intent. In any dispute, contrarian positions are publically posited by competing parties and a virtual race for endorsement of either of the competing narratives ensues. The cue to reading the reaction to conflicting arguments lies in the deployment of certain keywords, expressions and tonality that is expressed by the receiving audience at the end of the conflicting pitches.
In the tense and hyphenated domain of India-Pakistan realm, the ‘K’ (Kashmir) word dominates above all. Herein, the operative library of preferred words from New Delhi’s perspective has been “bilateral”, “cross-border terrorism” and “internal affairs” among others; whereas, from Islamabad’s perspective, it has been “international mediation”, “plebiscite” and “UN resolution.” Even the language syntax, emotions and phraseology in the war-of-words between India and Pakistan is decidedly more escalatory, shriller and beseeching when it emanates from Islamabad.
Historically, irrespective of the merits in the topical India-Pakistan arguments, the audience would typically respond in favour or against either of the countries — on the basis of a certain predisposed equation and preference. It’s only some unrelated country with negligible stakes which would occasionally partake an unbiased assessment of the arguments involved, as indeed, would some of the multilateral formations. Therefore, the inevitable play of certain “blocs” or realpolitik considerations resulted in a pre-decided tilt at least till now.
Post the recent revocation of the “special status” for Jammu and Kashmir as well as the planned bifurcation of the State into two “Union Territories”, diplomats from both sides of the Line of Control have been expectedly scurrying across the global capitals to posit their respective sovereign positions. The lines and angularities of the arguments are standard with Pakistan aggressively goading other nations into either condemning the Indian action or seeking mediation. As usual, India has been posturing “bilateral” note, defending its actions as rote “internal matter”, whilst cuttingly alluding to the recurring concerns of “cross-border terrorism.” Barring this time, the Pakistanis are caught by surprise by the unfolding script not toeing the usual “divide” that accompanied Islamabad’s earlier pitches on Kashmir. Global reaction has not only tilted heavily in India’s favour or at best elicited bored disinterest and homilies but has hit a new low of “telling silence” or “zero reaction” from the supposed allies of Pakistan.
Undeniably, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan had inherited a country with its economy in shambles and a discredited sovereign perception as the “terror nursery” of the globe. With traditional allies like the US openly castigating Islamabad for its duplicitous role in the terror industry and multilateral bodies like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) breathing down its neck to further “blacklist” it — Imran Khan had gone ahead with ostensible “course-correction”, austerity-drive and personal charm-offensives to posture “Naya Pakistan” onto the global stage.
Khan made quick dashes to China and to the Gulf sheikhdoms and made sure that he personally drove the visiting Princes from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE when they visited his country. As money started trickling in and the noose of corruption tightened against his political opponents, Khan felt even more confident of his own position, success and that of his country. He postured reconciliatory accent (whilst still undertaking a Pulwama in parallel), yet his eye on the global map with a changed “Naya Pakistan” was clearly work-in-progress.
Serendipitously, Washington’s U-turn in Afghanistan offered yet another opportunity to Islamabad to thaw its freeze with the US and leverage its imminent pivot in Kabul towards its strategic advantage. Suddenly, the move by the Indian Government to revoke Article 370 and 35A in Jammu and Kashmir put the worth of “Naya Pakistan” and its global efficacy to litmus test. Islamabad went into yet another round of competitive pitching vis-à-vis India, brandishing the “K” card.
Khan has been running from pillar-to-post and personally calling up the leaderships in the Gulf sheikhdoms, Iran, Indonesia and various other supposed “allies”. He also sought an emergency meeting at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). But so far, it has come a cropper. The US, the UN and the EU have instead suggested “maximum restraint” and embarrassingly so from Pakistan’s perspective, “bilateral resolution and engagement”.
Reportage in Pakistan is full of actions taken by the Government to escalate the issue with various Governments but there is a virtual silence, which is attributable directly to the leaderships in pitched countries. Even nations like the UAE have invoked the “bilateral” chorus. Amid Pakistani calls for bans, suspension of diplomatic relations and “solidarity moves” for ostensible concerns in Kashmir, Saudi Arabia announced mega deals with a major Indian conglomerate.
Barring China, which has come out with its loaded statements in favour of its “all-weather friend” Pakistan, it continues grappling with its own imploding destiny in Hong Kong. Basically, Pakistan remains stunningly isolated and ignored.
Sabre-rattling by the Pakistani deep state (military) and its local political classes notwithstanding, the reality of a persisting trust deficit and perceptions of sovereign incorrigibility still abound the Pakistani narrative. The transactional equation with China is also premised on the strategic investments of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which necessitates that Islamabad remains reciprocally mum on the fate of Uighur repression in China.
The recent round of tensions between India and Pakistan has driven home the importance of political morality, economic relevance and stability as opposed to regressive pandering to co-religiosity in forums like OIC or charm offensives. These are clearly not bankable levers in times like this.
While China will continue to indulge Pakistan for its own strategic rationale, the Pakistani “model” is an inherent anathema to Chinese sensibilities. Even the US may pander to some Pakistani whims as it will seek to extricate itself from Afghanistan. However, it has been the telling silence of all the countries in the immediate east of Pakistan that has given a resounding wake-up call to Islamabad to go beyond change in nomenclature and its insincere concerns in Kashmir.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)
Writer: Bhopinder Singh
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s statement on revising India’s No First Use nuclear policy in the future is open to interpretation
The Indian Defence Minister’s recent statement, anticipating a possible change in India’s nuclear policy in the future, is open to interpretation, and what it means for its nuclear doctrine in coming times is contingent on how the contours of India’s conventional escalation with its neighbour Pakistan shapes up.
The statement by Rajnath Singh signals a facile if not deep thought within the Narendra Modi Government for some time now on the need to revise India’s No First Use (NFU) policy, especially when seen as a corollary to the former Defence Minister, the late Manohar Parrikar’s statement in 2016 about being open to revision of India’s NFU policy.
Rajnath Singh’s recent statement on NFU seems only a step forward, as unlike previously, it does not come with “personal opinion” caveat.
India first adopted a NFU policy after its second nuclear tests at Pokhran in 1998. Soon after, in August 1999, the Indian government released a draft of the doctrine which asserts that nuclear weapons were solely for deterrence and that India would as a nation pursue a policy of “retaliation only.”
The document also maintains that India “will not be the first to initiate a nuclear first strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail” and that decisions to authorise the use of nuclear weapons would be made by the Prime Minister or his ‘designated successor(s)’.
That the Defence Minister’s NFU comment came in Pokhran, the site of the 1998 nuclear tests, gives wings to speculation. It also comes days within the Modi Government’s decision to change the status of Jammu and Kashmir, but most noticeably, amidst an ongoing diplomatic and cross-border escalation with Pakistan.
If this is any indication, it shows that the rungs of conventional escalation between India and Pakistan may be reaching the fag end, and the Indian government wants to come out of the retaliation-counter-retaliation cycle with a conventionally inferior power, which is on a quest to gain conventional parity with India. Pakistan’s constant threat of battlefield nuclear weapons further complicates India’s conventional superiority gap assessment vis-à-vis Pakistan, setting foundations of a strategically revisionist thought process within India.
Chances of nuclear policy revision seem more plausible in the light of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) historical assessments about making India a credible nuclear power through a directly proportional relationship between the country’s political will to revise its nuclear policy and deterrence-based posturing.
The Vajpayee Government’s decision to conduct the 1998 nuclear tests and project India as a credible nuclear power is a case in point. The Pokhran link to Rajnath Singh’s comments further underpins this government’s conviction about the aforementioned proportionality.
The Defence Minister’s assertion has reignited the debate on the need for India’s nuclear policy revision but whether it means that India is ready for a change in its NFU policy and will move to a First Use (FU) strategy is debatable.
Currently, there are various technological and financial constraints for New Delhi in erecting an effective first strike capability against Pakistan or China. A credible FU nuclear strike capability, before anything, would require significant investments in Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) and Target Acquisition (TA) capabilities. The essence of FU strike capability is pre-emption and accuracy, and would require an unfailing intelligence and shorter time-gap in the readiness sequence: passing of intelligence, civil-military decision-making, mating weapons with warheads, leading to final pre-empting strike on the enemy.
India’s first strike aspirations also face structural constraints, particularly apropos the decision-making paradigm that exists as of now. The civil-military gap in India’s strategic forces decision-making is deliberately made to create a non-provocative yet punitively reassuring second strike stance towards the enemy and, most importantly, to avert any rash decision leading to catastrophe. Such a doctrinal posture makes a lot of sense when viewed in the light of India’s non-alignment past, but is increasingly losing currency in the eyes of a revisionist government and a rallying nation.
India’s current civil-military gap is ideal for a country with a NFU policy. It’s a purposeful decoupling to mandate civilian supremacy in strategic decision-making and create checks and balances. In direct contrast to this, the FU force structure would possibly require an ever-vigilant and ready strategic posture with quick and decisive calls for action when needed, which in turn would need a smaller gap between the civilian go-ahead and the military’s final call, leading to the targeting and firing of the weapons with nuclear warheads.
New Delhi’s lessening of the civil-military gap can be seen in the context of the government’s recent decision to appoint a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), a five-star General with possibly a Cabinet rank whose role would supersede the three armed forces chiefs.
The centralization of power through the office of the CDS will not only consolidate general decision-making in one office, but is likely to reduce intra-forces rivalry on issues of budget and government favourability between the three wings of the armed forces.
In the strategic context and in relation to the country’s nuclear force posture, the office of the CDS is likely to be more in tune with its FU strategy than it will be with its current NFU strategy. As such, the Defence Minister’s statement hinting at a possible revision of India’s nuclear strategy could also be seen in the context of India’s decision to appoint a CDS.
While it is unlikely that India will go for a doctrinal alteration anytime soon, it could serve as an extremely potent plank to fight the next general elections in 2024. Given the kind of investments needed for readying a FU force structure, a revision anytime soon will be difficult.
However, to the extent that deterrence behavior in nuclear states is as much psychologically induced as it is from concrete, stated and factored capabilities, the Defence Minister’s statement has caused visible concerns in Pakistan.
Locating India’s overall NFU strategy, its force posture towards hostile neighbours, the number of warheads and the escalatory potential in a comparative context, paints a picture of a benign nuclear giant.
Doing away with NFU will repaint this picture, besides possibly affecting stability in the region.
That is a price this government is considering to pay in the light of New Delhi’s increasing fatigue with a rapidly lessening conventional gap with Pakistan, especially with Pakistan’s increasing tendency to factor Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNW) within conventional escalation spectrum, and with the solidifying China-Pakistan axis.
If Balakot lowered the threshold for India’s conventional response to Pakistan and altered the nature of response, a doctrinal shift from NFU to FU might go a long way in ushering an altered deterrence-induced behaviour in Pakistan, hopefully leading to a better future for bilateral ties between India and Pakistan.
(The writer is Visiting Fellow at the Stimson Center in Washington D.C & Deputy Director Kalinga Institute for Indo-Pacific Studies)
Writer: Vivek Mishra
Courtesy: The Pioneer
India and France considering a collaboration to launch 8-10 satellites as a part of ‘constellation’.
Whatever be the domestic apprehensions about the many controversial moves of Modi 2.0, particularly over the revocation of Article 370 and reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir, diplomatically it has managed to keep the opinion of the big power players on its side. Considering 14 of the 15 members at the UN Security Council were largely dismissive of Kashmir as a matter to be settled bilaterally and with China having no locus standi in the matter as it has been reorganising its own territories and legitimising PoK, India is moving to now matters maritime. And in a direct challenge to China’s “string of pearls” approach in the Indian Ocean Rim (IOR), one that has its military and commercial facilities dotting our littoral states, from the Chinese mainland to the Horn of Africa, India is looking to France to narrow down its hawk’s eyes. India’s new space endeavour with France, where the two countries will launch 8-10 satellites as part of a “constellation” for maritime surveillance, will help safeguard strategic interests at sea. This new venture, to be finalised during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Paris, will provide an inside-out information about developments over, on and under the sea surface and coastal areas. This has become almost a necessity considering China is known to have built artificial islands over the last decade or so. Besides, its interest in the Scarborough Shoal near the Philippines and its military fortification of islands in the South China Sea have complicated the security environment. Considering that France has been supportive of India’s position and has even spearheaded resolutions to protect it from Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in the UN, there could be no better ally in this project of a larger national security.
The Chinese belligerence on our waters is worrisome simply because sea lines run through several major maritime choke points such as the Strait of Mandeb, the Strait of Malacca, the Strait of Hormuz and the Lombok Strait as well as other strategic maritime centres in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, the Maldives and Somalia. Right now, China has effectively encircled India and reinforced its superiority by setting up outposts and ports in countries which are beholden to it courtesy the economic projects under the Belt and Road Initiative. Apart from military muscularity, such control also bodes ill for the ease of trade in these waters. India itself conducts nearly 40 per cent of its trade with littoral nations along IOR and has been consistently working with some of them to preserve the integrity, inviolability and freedom of oceanic channels. While we have been conducting joint naval exercises, fact is our Navy is not as cutting edge as China’s, hence the need for pre-emptive surveillance. The new age of conflicts means that we are as prone to the dangers of maritime terrorism, smuggling, transnational crime, drug trafficking, illegal immigration besides climate change issues. This satellite cluster will, therefore, monitor sea traffic management. While the IOR is of concern to India, France, too, has its territories spread across the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and is seeking cooperation on its vigil campaign. India was a natural choice as a partner because France has had space cooperation with us for about six decades and is now involved even in ISRO’s human mission programme, Gaganyaan. This alliance is expected to continue in our future interplanetary endeavours. Of late, India has found a strategic and technological sounding board in France as its relations with others have their own set boxes — Russia remains our oldest defence partner and despite leaning towards China for practical reasons, still honours the legacy of a shared past. China, despite everything that is disputed, remains our key trading partner and the US is a new-found ally. Over the decades, India and France have emerged as true democratic partners, who honour the spirit of international law, and have been developing cooperation in counter-terrorism, intelligence-sharing and cooperation on investigations and judicial processes. Despite global outcry over the nuclear tests in 1998, France was the first to resume nuclear talks with India and among the first to push nuclear trade in later years. One area that remains unexplored is that of bilateral trade between the two. On the basis of this trust, India may even become a middle power with its own bargaining chips.
Courtesy: The Pioneer
India and China must work together to improve relations between the two nations. The need for both nations to come together and work toward establishing global peace and security is paramount.
The outcome of External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar’s visit to China has been positive, not only in terms of India explaining its stand but also clearing the air for future exchanges. The External Affairs Minister is not only a distinguished diplomat but having been India’s Ambassador to China, he knows the system and personalities whom he has to deal with. One major point made by him to China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi was to emphasise that the future of the India-China relationship will depend on “mutual sensitivity” to each other’s “core concerns.” In return, Minister Wang Yi emphasised “the five principles of peaceful co-existence”, which have “fundamental interest and long-term interest of our two peoples and also contribute to world peace and human progress.” As an immediate measure, India and China signed four agreements covering cultural exchanges, healthcare, sports and cooperation in museum management. In particular, both Jaishankar and Yi emphasised the importance of cooperation in the field of traditional medicine, wherein both China and India, the two most ancient civilisations in the modern world, have cumulative knowledge.
The time has come now to provide a new orientation in China-India relations. In the economic field, bilateral trade between the two countries touched almost $90 billion in 2017-18 but trade deficit increased to $62.9 billion in China’s favour. China must follow Lao Tzu: “If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.” It clearly has interests which are long term, given its ancient history and traditions and it is unlikely that it would think in terms of mere short-term benefits that could lead to friction and disputes. Our External Affairs Minister clearly mentioned that any bilateral differences should not become disputes.
China has major ambitions to emerge as the largest and most influential global power in the world. Its growth rate has been phenomenal and poverty, which was widely prevalent, has more or less been completely eliminated. This writer first visited China in 1981 and today, the country represents progress which most other nations have achieved in almost a century. Yet, China cannot ignore the fact that it shares a large border with India and the latter is a rising power in a complex world. There is every need for the two nations to come together and work towards the establishment of global peace and security.
One major area where the two countries must cooperate is in respect of promoting a pattern of sustainable development which deviates substantially from the Western model. Unfortunately, both nations have been following this model. China in particular has adopted it much too rapidly with major economic success but with some adverse consequences both at the global and national levels. Gandhiji was not in any way exaggerating when he predicted that for the civilised West “a time is coming when those who are in the mad rush today of multiplying their wants, will retrace their steps and say; what have we done…. Modern civilisation is such that one has only to be patient and it will be self-destroyed.” What we find across the entire world, which is mindlessly aping the Western model, is human-induced climate change resulting from the burning of fossil fuels, a loss of biodiversity and destruction of the earth’s ecosystems.
China and India are large countries, which are also suffering from the consequences of these disastrous trends. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has projected and as is becoming increasingly evident today, the frequency and intensity of extreme events is rapidly on the increase. These take place in the form of heat waves, extreme precipitation events and several sea level related disasters. There are areas which are suffering from prolonged drought, which at the same time, witness floods during certain seasons.
China already has a major problem of water scarcity, particularly in its western region. India, too, is suffering from the consequences of global climate change, which clearly makes this a “core concern” for both societies. It is also important for the population of China and India to set a new path of development which is relevant not only for the two countries but also for the rest of the world. Together, China and India are close to three billion people in a world which holds today an estimated 7.7 billion. Clearly, therefore, whatever path is set by the two countries will have a major influence on the world as a whole.
An area in which cooperation is needed would be to develop and use renewable sources of energy. The IPCC has clearly assessed the reasons for the world to keep within the 1.5oC limit by the end of the century. It has also defined the implications of land use, including massive consumption of meat, which is totally unsustainable. Today, China has increased its consumption of all forms of meat to a huge level. However, fortunately, it is one of the leaders in the use of renewable energy wherein both countries would derive mutual benefits from working together.
In Prime Minister Modi’s Independence Day speech, he emphasised the need for water conservation, including precision agriculture, rainwater harvesting and waste water treatment. He also highlighted the indiscriminate use of plastic. Additionally, he addressed the need for cutting down on the use of chemical fertilisers in agriculture by up to 25 per cent. He stated: “This would be a great service to the nation. This would be a great step in saving our Mother Earth.”
China and India can work towards the use of bio-fertilisers, which would enable us to do away with chemical fertilisers. “Saving our Mother Earth” is clearly a core concern for both societies. This writer has interacted with those responsible for conceptualising a facility called “Science City”, which is to be established outside Beijing over an area of 100 square kilometres.
The ambition behind this initiative is to see that China addresses global problems of a long-term nature. Perhaps India could also join hands with China, with delineation of principles governing intellectual property and clear areas of common endeavour to cooperate in “Science City” so that we work towards developing global solutions for a sustainable future.
(The writer is former chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2002-15)
Writer: RK Pachauri
Courtesy: The Pioneer
The decision to abrogate Article 370 was taken amid high tension, lockdown, rumour-mongering and the echo of jackboots in Jammu and Kashmir
The process of abrogation of Article 370 has been as controversial as the provisions of the Article itself. In its bid to reshape the political landscape of Jammu and Kashmir, the Modi Government, buoyed by the massive mandate it received to return to the seat of power for a second term, scrapped the special status granted to the volatile state by the Constitution of India.
As is the case with most decisions taken in a democracy, unsavoury or otherwise, in a matter of minutes a political slugfest ensued, following the announcement. While some, mostly those occupying the Treasury benches in the House, saw it as a “glorious day” for India, others called it a “dark day” for parliamentary democracy.
Nonetheless, the decision to abrogate Article 370 was taken amidst high tension, lockdown, rumour mongering and the echo of jackboots in J&K. The Centre restricted public movement by imposing Section 144 of CrPC and several important political leaders of the state were detained and put under house arrest. The Amarnath Yatra was suspended early, tourists were asked to leave and all forms of communication channels were paralysed, isolating the state from the rest of the country, ironically, all in the name of promoting better integration.
Article 370, which granted special status to J&K and Article 35A that empowered the state legislature to define the “permanent residents” of J&K and their special rights and privileges, has long been under the shadow of controversy. It has been a contested constitutional question whether the provisions of Article 370 were that of a temporary nature and was the Parliament ever empowered to abrogate it.
If we revisit history, it becomes evident from clause 7 of the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh that the state could not be compelled to accept any future Constitution of India. Furthermore, J&K was well within its rights to draft its own constitution and to decide for itself what additional powers to extend to the Central Government. Article 370 was designed to protect these special rights agreed upon under the Instrument of Accession.
Though Article 370 of the Constitution states that the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify, however, provisio to Article 370 clearly states that recommendation of the constituent Assembly of the state referred to in clause 2 of Article 370 shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification. But, since the J&K constituent Assembly later created the State’s constitution and dissolved itself without recommending the abrogation of Article 370, the Article was deemed to have become a permanent feature of the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court (SC) as well as High Courts of states on several occasions have specifically stated that Article 370 of the Constitution is not a temporary provision. In Kumari Vijayalakshmi Jha vs. Union of India (2017), the Delhi High Court rejected a petition claiming that Article 370 was temporary. In 2018, the SC stated that Article 370 is not a temporary provision. Similarly the apex court in SBI vs. Zaffar Ullah Nehru (2016) held that J&K has a special status and that Article 370 is not temporary.
On the other hand, Article 3 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Parliament to amend the Constitution by a simple majority to change or alter the boundaries of a state but only when the Bill concerning the same is first referred to the state Assembly concerned for its opinion. But, the decision to create two new Union Territories, J&K and Ladakh, was taken by Parliament without referring the same to J&K Assembly.
As the Assembly was dissolved by an order under Article 356, there was no constitutional body to make the recommendations either under Article 370 (3) or under Article 3.
In such a context, a shortcut was found in the provision of Article 356 (1) (b) that allowed the President to declare that the powers of the state legislature shall be exercisable by or under the authority of the President while President’s Rule was in operation in a state.
In the process, perhaps for the first time in the history of state reorganisation in India, a state was converted into two Union Territories, reversing the hitherto existing trend.
Needless to say that Indian federalism became the biggest casualty of our political leaders’ desire to create history in one stroke. With the Valley being under lockdown and an unprecedented number of boots on the ground to maintain peace, one is tempted to question the hurried need for abrogating Article 370 without taking the people and the political leaders of J&K into confidence. Can the Centre justify the manner in which all this was done? In law, especially in Constitutional law, procedure is as important as the outcome. It may be recalled that the 1971 election of Indira Gandhi was declared null and void by the Allahabad High Court on grounds of a procedural illegality.
More than the act itself, what is worrisome, is the manner in which it has been dealt with and the subsequent lockdown of the Valley that put curbs on the liberty of citizens of the state.
Such a sensitive matter certainly needed political maturity on the part of the powers that be, who, would have done well to focus on confidence building measure, by way of discussion with key stakeholders.
Unfortunately, neither was the spirit of a deliberative democracy respected, nor was any consensus building attempt made in the frenzied hurry to abrogate Article 370.
The whole episode, therefore, not only undermined the very spirit of democratic functioning but also demonstrated the centralising tendency compromising the framework of asymmetrical federalism that the Constitution of India envisaged.
When the democratic State starts behaving and functioning like a majoritarian and authoritarian one, not only does the constitutional promise get shattered, the future prospects of unity and integrity look bleak.
This, therefore, should be a moment of introspection and not that of celebration. Looking at the lockdown in the Valley and the virtual imprisonment of its people in blatant disregard of their rights in the name of greater integration and the so-called development of the region, one is prompted to ask whether India has pushed Kashmir to the point of no return.
The answer is probably blowing in the wind in the bleeding Valley.
Unfortunately, we have no access to read the writing on the wall of the Valley, with the region being virtually cut off from the rest of the country and both the free movement of the fact finding teams to the state and reporting from the Valley being restricted to a great extent.
However, one can safely assume that in yet another bid to write history in one stroke, the country is going to learn the historic lesson that the project of national integration promoting greater unity and integrity calls for moving beyond the desire of over-centralisation and the idea of forced integration by focussing more on sharing of political power and simultaneously pursuing policies of greater accommodation.
(Pankaj Sarma is an Assistant Professor of political science at Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi, and Popimoni Sharma is a former Guest Lecturer of GB Law College, Guwahati)
Writer: Pankaj Sharma Popimoni Sharma
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Though lives were saved, poor compliance means years of precious research have been lost at the elite institution
The intensity of the massive blaze at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, and the leaping fury with which it engulfed its floors in a matter of moments can be gauged from the fact that it took nearly three dozen fire tenders over eight long hours to be doused. Had not AIIMS been a prized institution, perhaps the emergency response wouldn’t have been activated with as much urgency and wilfulness but the fact remains that even the safety protocols at the most aware of places had not been reviewed in three years, the last time being in 2016. AIIMS is one of the few hospitals in the city that has an interconnecting ramp to move patients in times of disasters. Perhaps this is why lives weren’t lost in the country’s premier hospital but imagine this in any other government facility and the mind addles to think what could be. Thankfully, the fire was confined to the pre-clinical and teaching blocks in the country’s sought after facility but it did have all the hallmarks of a major disaster. And while AIIMS authorities are particular about top-notch research, they ought to be as sharp about protecting them. For though no human life has been lost, there has been immense loss of intellectual property in the long-term. Hundreds of blood samples at the micro-biology lab, rare viruses, crucial research, scholarly papers, case updates and expensive machines have been completely gutted. Findings are the basis of any medical breakthrough and the foundation for that is gone forever. And if administrators of such an evolved centre cannot be far-sighted about basic safety compliances or build efficiencies in awareness, then there is little to be expected of others. The Delhi Fire Department has said that some of the buildings, including the one that caught fire, did not have the requisite No Objection Certificate (NOC). The NOC is mandatory in the fire safety document, which is renewed every three years and certified annually.
Intriguingly, the general apathy to hospital and patient safety persists despite repeated outbreaks of fire at medical facilities across the country claiming scores of lives. Be it the AMRI episode in Kolkata, which claimed 92 lives, the ESIC Hospital in Mumbai or the SMU Hospital in Bhubaneswar, post-mortem has revealed how they blatantly ignored warnings and safety recommendations or pushed them out of the priority list in their greed to acquire more cutting-edge competitiveness in services. Yet patient care and safety in times of earthquakes, fire or floods do not even merit an intra-institution workshop. While the Delhi Police is waiting for the forensic report to deduce what led to this catastrophe, there are too many questions that demand answers. The hospital was not only ill-prepared but failed to adhere to the guidelines on hospital safety as mandated by the National Disaster Management Authority in 2016 and the National Building Code (NBC) 2005, which made the fire safety certificate mandatory for all buildings taller than 15 m. In fact, most Government buildings as also shop owners, restaurants, hotels, and other private buildings openly flout norms. Needless to say, the situation is all the more precarious in a hospital environment, which is home to those who are incapacitated and, thus, movement becomes challenging in case of a fire or any untoward incident. Even so, where building codes like alarms, sprinkler systems, hosepipes and insulation panels among others are in place, and where the builder claims to have used materials in line with the regulations, the actuals turn out to be about fake compliance, the certificates usually got by greasing palms of local officials. In cases where NOC has been obtained, rarely are fire safety audits carried out. Most post-fire probes have revealed how encroachments and tweaks in open areas have made it really difficult for the firemen to even get into the core zone. They say no tragedy is dark enough that the gloom cannot be lifted. Two babies were born amid the raging fire. Which means going forward, beyond taking action against those responsible for the incident to ensure accountability, there needs to be a strict penal clause, including deregistration of the establishment concerned, if the prescribed safety norms are not met. Third-party audits, too, must be made mandatory to avoid conflict of interest between the municipal authorities and Government officials. Unless a system of checks and balances is put in place, we will never internalise the spirit of risk containment and expose ourselves to unimaginable dangers. And that would be foolhardy indeed.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month