The BJP will do well to remember ISRO’s journey, which started from launching a satellite on a bullock cart. Instead of being focussed on image management, it must solve people’s problems
Ariane Passenger Payload Experiment (APPLE), a product of India’s first geostationary experimental communication Satellite Project during 1977-83, was successfully launched by Ariane-1, from Kourou, French Guyana, on June 19, 1981. The journey to its successful launch was tricky though. In 1981, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) did not have mainframe computers and the satellite’s antenna needed to be tested as problems were detected in certain links, specifically the telemetry, tracking and control links that were crucial to ensure regular communication with the satellite in space. It was, therefore, crucial to ensure that these links were functional before the launch.
But it could only have been done in a proper antenna range, with the satellite structure placed under a thermal blanket and the ISRO did not possess such infrastructure at that time. The satellite needed a non-metallic structure where it could be placed and where testing could be carried out. Since time was of the essence, such a structure could not be developed. So, there came an ingenious idea of placing the satellite on a bullock cart so that the test could be carried out. The bullock cart, which was hired at a nominal cost Rs 150, provided a non-magnetic environment and enabled ISRO to carry out the antenna test in an open field.
The great thing about this story is that it underlines Indian ingenuity and ambition at its finest. The ancillary benefit, of course, is that it provides a lovely story behind an incredible Indian organisation and provides colour to the country’s impressive space adventure. However, this is just an ancillary benefit. ISRO did not set out with putting a satellite on a bullock cart and then happened to successfully ensure proper testing of the satellite. The publicity that this story generated was a byproduct of what ISRO wanted to achieve, not a motivator.
Political parties today, especially the BJP Government at the Centre, would do well to remember this story. The clearest example of how “publicity” and “politics” is the primary motivation and the end result for this Government is that of the recent migrant crisis. As everyone is aware, millions of labourers from States across the country were suddenly left stranded after the nationwide lockdown came into force. Without pay, they were barred from returning to the comfort of their homes. Their families, too, had to face this emergency. This forced the migrant workers to walk thousands of kilometres under the sweltering summer sun. Some even hid inside cement mixers to try and reach their homes. However, our international evacuees did not have to endure such indignity when the lockdown started.
There have been no stories of individuals swimming across the English Channel to the shores of India but our migrants have had to suffer that indignity. Then the Centre asked the States to look after the migrant labourers even as no provisions were made for their travel and return. This was further exacerbated by the fact that States such as Delhi did not receive any fund from the Centre to aid their fight against Corona. In the end, they were largely left on their own to ensure that the migrants are not adversely affected, even though the primary plea of the labourers has consistently been to return to their respective homes. Since inter-State transport falls under the Union list, the expectation was that the BJP Government at the Centre would take care of this concern.
However, in reality, what happened was that though certain special trains were made operational, the migrants were charged thousands of rupees. If any worker had that kind of money, would he/she be hiding in cement mixers or even attempt to walk home? It was this action that prompted Subramaniam Swamy, a BJP leader, to call the Government’s idea to charge poor migrants for their journey home as “moronic.” I hardly ever find myself in agreement with Swamy but these are strange times.
Thereafter, a political rival of the BJP said that the State units of the Congress would pay for the tickets of the migrants. This generated negative publicity for the BJP and, therefore, the Government cleared that the railways would pay 85 per cent of the ticket prices with the States footing the remaining 15 per cent.
However, this face-saving move by the BJP did not come with any intention to help the migrants but to score political points or to rather prevent losing more political points. How do we know this? Well for starters, the Centre is not paying 85 per cent of the fare being charged to the migrants.
Moreover, there is no order to that effect anywhere as on the date of writing this article. Instead, what the BJP is doing is media manoeuvring. The Indian Railways has always subsidised in general to keep the ticket prices low. The BJP wants us to believe that this subsidised fare amounts to covering 85 per cent of the cost and in asking the States to bear the remaining 15 per cent of the cost is actually asking them to pay the entire cost of the ticket.
Even in the Supreme Court, where the question cropped up before the Solicitor-General if the Centre was actually bearing 85 per cent of the fare, he said that he had “no instructions” to reveal what proportion would be shared by the Railways and the States. Why this uncertainty to a rather straight forward question?
In fact, in Karnataka, the BJP went one step further and cancelled all the trains for migrants to relegate them to bonded labourers. BJP MP Tejasvi Surya even went on to tweet that such a move will help the migrants “restart their dreams.” The moral flexibility on the show is almost admirable. However, after all the uproar and noise, the Karnataka BJP has apparently now reversed its decision, much like how it came out and said that it would “bear” 85 per cent of the ticket fare for migrants after it was pushed to a corner.
The question is: Why does it always take bad Press for this Government to be forced into good governance? It’s because a large part of what it does is image management. Questions (when taken) are either refused on technicalities or obfuscated as in the present case of the migrant trains. The need of the hour instead is to focus on problem-solving by including the States and Opposition parties and being honest with the citizens. In doing so, the BJP would finally put the “bull” before the cart. It can learn a thing or two about it from ISRO.
(Writer: Ajoy Kumar; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
The gas leak at a chemical unit near Visakhapatnam shows why we never learn lessons and our laws mean nothing
Just when the nation is struggling to breathe as COVID-19 tightens its grip, the preventive lockdown because of it extracted a heavy price as gas leaked out of a shut chemical plant near Visakhapatnam and choked people in their homes. It seemed the ghosts of the Bhopal gas tragedy of 1984 revisited us as the leak affected over 5,000 people while they lay asleep in the wee hours at Gopalapatnam nvillage. At last count, 11 had died but thousands are gasping for survival in hospitals. Toxic styrene escaped from an LG Polymers facility when its owners tried restarting the plant at midnight following the easing of lockdown restrictions for business and an alarm malfunctioned. Clearly no safety protocol or a cautionary approach was followed in the rush for reopening the unit. The gas came from two 5,000-tonne tanks that had been lying unattended and unmonitored during the 40-day lockdown. In such an uncalibrated scenario, gases do not remain inert, they react, cause a chemical reaction and generate heat that might have triggered the leak. An official from the owner firm himself accepted that there were 1,800 tonnes of styrene in the storage tank and that stagnation and changes in temperature might have resulted in auto polymerisation, which could have caused the sudden vapourisation of the gas. So negligence certainly cannot be ruled out. The Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical (Amendment) Rules, 2000, list a number of chemicals that call for safe handling, including styrene. Even mild exposure to it results in irritation of mucous membrane and eyes and affects the gastrointestinal system. Long-term exposure impacts the central nervous system and leads to headache, fatigue and weakness. Therefore, a safety audit ought to have been conducted before resuming operations, considering that the plant was old and had considerable wear and tear. In fact, a no-objection certificate from the pollution control board should have been made mandatory before even attempting a re-opening. Though the scale of the leak was lesser than that of Bhopal, this was no less a serious industrial tragedy. It also showed that we still have not learnt lessons from our past. Although the industrial unit was located in the outskirts of the city, 20 villages thrived in a radius of five kilometres. It is too late to ask questions about why zoning separation wasn’t done all these years. At least, given the risks opening an unmaintained facility entailed, authorities ought to have warned or evacuated residents. As a result of this negligence, we witnessed apocalyptic scenes of villagers rushing out of their homes as they were being asphyxiated and literally falling unconscious on the roads. Some were trapped in their houses, some tried jumping into the well and out of their balconies.
This too, like Bhopal, will remain in the news for a while and then be quickly forgotten. For the corporate owners and multinational giants, despite protracted legal battles, always manage to wriggle out of reparations or culpability, usually using their proximity to Governments of the day or negotiating new investment prospects. And chemical unit accidents keep happening with astonishing regularity. According to the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), 130 chemical accidents had been reported around the country in the last decade alone, causing 259 deaths and 563 serious injuries. The GAIL pipeline blast of 2014 claimed 15 lives while injuring over 40 others. The same year, at Bhilai steel plant, a gas leak killed six people and injured over 40. And in 2017, more than 470 school children were hospitalised in Delhi’s Tughlaqabad area after they inhaled toxic fumes emanating from a factory nearby. It is because the law never takes its course that industrial safety standards in the country keep getting short-changed or flouted. The Environment Protection Act (EPA) came up in 1986 in the aftermath of Bhopal. The following year, soon after the oleum gas leak in New Delhi, a new chapter was added to the Factories Act, 1948, widening the scope of what constitutes risk. Further, the Public Liability Insurance Act (PLIA), too, came into effect to provide interim compensation to the victims in the event of an industrial disaster. Forty years on, pertinent questions arise today: Are these laws still relevant? Have they been used appropriately? Is there any need for more stringent laws? In the absence of an active regulatory regime, all the laws to tackle chemical disasters will mean nothing.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
The contemptible action of people to obstruct the dignified interment of doctors and violence against health workers battling the pandemic has outraged the medical fraternity and most citizens
A doctor contracted COVID-19 from a patient and succumbed to the virus on April 19 in Chennai. The funeral of the doctor was stopped by residents who assembled in large numbers to oppose it. The Madras High Court, taking suo moto cognisance of the despicable incident, said that Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the life and personal liberty of all persons, includes within its ambit the right to a decent burial. The court said that this doctor was deprived of his right to have a decent burial.
In another incident in Meghalaya, the local governing bodies known as Durbar Shnong prevented the cremation of a COVID-19 infected doctor. Consequently, the Meghalaya Bar Association filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the High Court, against the State and local bodies. The court noted that the State authorities handled the matter in an inept way and the obstructive conduct of the Durbar Shnong would shock the conscience of every right-thinking individual.
The contemptible action of various groups to obstruct the dignified interment of doctors and other healthcare professionals has outraged the medical fraternity and all citizens with a conscience. On April 20, the Indian Medical Association (IMA) said that objections to proper funerals of doctors and other health workers, dying in the line of pandemic duty, is the last straw. The IMA demanded a special Central law to take stringent action against those who indulge in violence against healthcare professionals and hospitals. The IMA called for a “white alert” on April 22 and sought to declare April 23 as a “black day” if its demands to protect the serving medical fraternity were not met.
Soon after, the Union Cabinet passed the Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 which was then signed by the President. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare intended the Ordinance to ensure “zero tolerance” to any form of violence against healthcare professionals and damage to property. Significantly, in 2019 the Healthcare Services Personnel and Clinical Establishments (Prohibition of Violence and Damage to Property) Bill, drafted by the Health Ministry to contain violence against doctors, was rejected by the Home Ministry, saying that there cannot be a separate legislation to protect the members of a particular profession.
Hopefully, this Ordinance will make up for the past errors and infuse confidence in the healthcare community, that is on the frontline in our war against the pandemic. Though the passing of the Ordinance itself is a positive decision by the Government, the moot question is whether the new law is adequate to protect doctors and other healthcare workers?
According to the Ordinance, an “act of violence” includes any of the following acts committed against healthcare personnel: Harassment impacting living or working conditions; harm, injury or danger to life; obstruction in the discharge of duties and loss or damage to the property or documents of the healthcare personnel.
Property is defined to include: Clinical establishment; quarantine facility; mobile medical unit, and other property in which a healthcare worker has a direct interest. Further, “healthcare personnel” are people, who while carrying out their duties in relation to countering the epidemic, may come in direct contact with affected patients and thereby are at the risk of being impacted by such disease and include any public and clinical healthcare providers such as doctors, nurses, paramedical staff and community health workers. The Ministry claimed that while the citizens fully cooperated with healthcare personnel most of the time, there were sporadic incidents of violence that demoralised the medical fraternity fighting the contagion. Therefore, it was felt that separate and stringent provisions for emergent times were needed to act as effective deterrents to any such incidents of violence.
Though the Ministry makes tall claims of zero tolerance, with very high aspirations of pacifying a demoralised and shaken medical fraternity, the Ordinance does not address the issue of attacks on healthcare workers in normal circumstances, after the pandemic is over. Assaults on them existed globally, long before COVID-19 reared its ugly head. Numerous pleas to protect medical staff have fallen on deaf ears. According to the IMA, over 75 per cent of doctors and other healthcare professionals have faced violence at work.
In 2012, a pregnant woman with obstetric complications died in Tuticorin. In retaliation, the attending doctor was killed by the enraged husband. This triggered a call for a strike by the Tamil Nadu Government Doctors’ Association. The IMA has demanded that hospitals be declared as “protected zones” and called for strict implementation of laws in cases of violence against health professionals.
In 2014, angry relatives of a 14-year-old boy, who was declared “brought dead” at a private hospital in Bathinda, Punjab, went on a rampage. They damaged the nursing home and burnt down the doctor’s house. The Punjab State Chapter of the IMA demanded strict action against those responsible for damaging the nursing home and the house of the doctor. Angry relatives of patients are not the only ones who oppress medical professionals, the Government set-up is also equally guilty. Dr Indranil Khan, an oncologist, faced harassment after he posted images of doctors wearing raincoats in a COVID-19 ward of a Government hospital on social media. Police detained Dr Khan, charged him with causing communal disharmony and criminal intimidation and confiscated his phone.
A writ petition against his harassment by the police was filed before the Calcutta High Court. Justice Prasanna Mukherji of the Calcutta High Court said that freedom of speech and expression, which is granted under Article 19 of the Constitution, has to be scrupulously upheld by the State. The court said that if an expression of opinion brings the Government into disrepute, it cannot defend the allegation by intimidation of the person expressing the opinion by subjecting him to prolonged interrogation, threatening arrest, seizing his mobile phone and SIM card.
In another incident, Dr Piyush Pushkar Singh, who complained about the shortage of equipment and protective masks, was terminated by the Hindu Rao Hospital for bringing disrepute to the institution on April 15. Clearly, the Epidemic Diseases Ordinance, 2020, which is stated to ensure the safety of healthcare professionals is not designed to protect Dr Khan and Dr Singh.
Sadly, the COVID-19 outbreak led to a rash of attacks against doctors and other health workers. Healthcare personnel deployed in rural areas were beaten and stopped from entering the villages and for “violating” the lockdown while going to work. The hurried promulgation of the Ordinance appears to be a knee-jerk reaction by the Government. First, the Ministry’s claim that the citizens fully cooperated with the healthcare workers is belied by its own statement that incidents of violence have occurred which demoralised the medical fraternity. Second, the Ordinance only “protects” healthcare personnel in an epidemic and not in general conditions. Therefore, this Ordinance does not afford any protection to the medical fraternity in a non-epidemic situation.
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), health workers must be provided with training on infection prevention, given Personal Protection Equipment and technical updates. They must have a blame-free environment to report on incidents such as exposure to blood or bodily fluids or violence.
The right to health i.e. the right to live in a hygienic and safe environment, flows from Article 21. According to Article 47 the improvement of public health is the primary duty of the State. Justice Chandrachud said under Article 21, the right to life is meaningless unless accompanied by the guarantee of certain concomitant rights including, but not limited to, the right to health. The right to health is understood to be indispensable to a life of dignity, well-being and includes, for instance, the right to emergency medical care and the right to maintenance and improvement of public health. In the current situation, with the need to have a conducive and safe environment for medical professionals and the responsibility of the State to provide for public health, the Government will be well-advised to take all steps to protect the medical fraternity from any form of lawlessness. The Centre must consider enacting a stand-alone law that will enable hospitals and medical personnel to work in a safe environment at all times, so as to attain the Constitutional aspiration of right to health for all citizens. While social distancing is being advocated, medical professionals do not have the privilege of working remotely. The best form of applause to give the doctors and medical personnel is to give them a safe working environment.
(Writer: Robin R david; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Millions of Indians are out of work. We must not let them get out of hope as well. It’s time for some big-bang reforms
A survey by an independent economic think-tank, the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), for the week ended May 3 has estimated that unemployment rate in India surged to a staggering 27.11, up from just 8.7 per cent in early March. Unemployment has always been a slow-burn crisis in India but what’s worrying is an urban flare-up ever since the lockdown. According to the latest CMIE data, unemployment rate was the highest in urban areas, which include a majority of the red zones. As against 26.16 per cent for rural areas, it stood at 29.22 per cent in urban India. In the previous week ended April 26, the urban unemployment rate had stood at 21.45 per cent and the rural unemployment rate at 20.88 per cent. The impact of the shutdown on small businesses and manufacturing facilities has been brutal. Several previously viable, even profitable businesses have been laid low due to the COVID-19 shutdown. And with it, all hopes and dreams of not just thousands of entrepreneurs but also accountants, clerks, secretaries and more have been shattered. Companies have had to slash wage bills significantly in order to ride out the storm and “orders” to pay salaries cannot possibly be met. We understand that several unions have approached the courts, asking them to order companies to pay up. Firms, too, have retaliated saying that they cannot possibly pay and that there needs to be a sense of rationality here. It is true that some companies have used the pandemic as an excuse to shut down parts of their business or to get rid of recalcitrant employees and are just shrugging their shoulders. That said, unions should also realise that several firms have seen their cash flows drop to zero and normal salary payouts to all employees will be impossible. Instead of fighting fruitless cases, which will only succeed in shutting down companies, unions need to rally the troops and raise money from their employed members to support those who are jobless. Of course, only good ones do that and in India, unions have been in a political morass for decades.
It must be agreed that we had no other option than go for a complete shutdown in a bid to contain the disease. But this does not absolve the Government. When the scale of disruption has been such that unemployment is becoming the norm, it calls upon the Government to intervene and respond with all the resources it has at hand to alleviate distress. Statements by the Chief Economic Advisor KV Subramanian, saying that there will be “no free lunch” for a stimulus, are extremely unhelpful and insensitive. Further, the situation conveys that this Government is not getting the correct advice. Maybe these words were made in response to Nobel Prize-winning economist Abhijit Banerjee’s comments on a call with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, where he had argued for a massive stimulus. But prima facie, it is impossible to see what choice the Government has if the economy is to revive. It will be expensive and will mean the suspension of some big-ticket projects and investments. Possibly even a pay cut for the Government itself. But if revenues are to rise again, the Government has to spend instead of doing public relations exercises around “Make in India.” The need is to sustain incomes and that calls upon the Government to save the weakened parts of the economy. The need for a fiscal package cannot be denied. This is the start of the seventh year of the Narendra Modi Government and the COVID pandemic cannot be blamed on prior actions. India has a once in a lifetime opportunity to attract investors and make some truly dramatic reforms. We are letting that opportunity as well as any job of preserving jobs slip through our fingers. We cannot allow that to happen. If for nothing else, at least for the sake of the millions who are now unemployed.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
As we face economic challenges resulting from the pandemic, innovative and tested measures can be very effective in providing relief to those without vital resources
In times of an unprecedented socio-economic crisis, like the one that has engulfed India and the world today, it becomes extremely valuable to draw meaningful insights from programmes around the globe that have demonstrated positive impacts in providing safety nets for the poor and vulnerable. As large portions of the country’s population, especially those engaged in the informal sector, lose wages due to the Coronavirus outbreak, the necessity of providing social safety nets becomes even more evident.
One of the biggest programmes in the world for Conditional Cash Transfers (CCT), Bolsa Famila of Brazil, has been widely recognised as an innovative instrument of social policy for redressing poverty and inequality. It was initiated in 2003 after merging four existing federal programmes, since the previous ones had had a limited impact due to fragmented efforts. Data systems were not interlinked and one family could benefit from multiple interventions while another, in more abject conditions, might receive nothing. A unified cash transfer programme was hence necessitated. A new Ministry for Social Development and Combating Hunger was created for administering it.
I had the opportunity of gaining valuable insights into the programme in my capacity as Mission Director of the Mission Convergence programme of the Government of Delhi, which was exploring good practices for improving the efficacy of various social welfare-oriented schemes meant for the poor and vulnerable.
The initial learnings were based on my visit to Brasila in 2008 in response to the invitation for a seminar-cum-awards programme organised by the Government of Brazil for knowledge exchange and recognising innovative practices at local levels. The second visit was facilitated by the World Bank as a study tour in which a number of senior officers from the Delhi Government, representing the departments of Social Welfare, Food and Supplies, Labour, Information Technology and Revenue, were also nominated through the Mission Convergence initiative.
Significance: Bolsa Familia gained wide acceptance from the federal Government, States and municipalities in Brazil as a coordinated strategy for social protection. It resulted in integration of multiple CCTs at the federal and sub-national level. Beneficiary families were also linked with complementary services, resulting in comprehensive interventions for social assistance and support services for labour.
The targetting accuracy of the programmes is demonstrated by the coverage and its rapid expansion. It started from 3.8 million families in 2003 as drawn from pre-reform programmes and reached 11.1 million families (46 million people) in 2006, i.e. a quarter of the population of Brazil and 13 million by 2010. Near universal coverage of the poor was attained. Direct cash transfer brought efficiency gains with extremely low transaction costs. Only 0.4 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was the programme cost, with 97.4 per cent being actual transfers to beneficiaries.
Programme design: At the core of Bolsa Familia is direct cash transfer to a family so that a minimum level of sustainability is guaranteed to poor households. A fixed amount was provided as unconditional transfer. A variable amount based on income levels and the number of children was transferred as CCT with a maximum cap and subject to compliances like school enrollment and attendance, immunisation, growth monitoring visits, pre and anti-natal visits of pregnant and lactating mothers and participation of families in counselling programmes. Vulnerable groups were also linked with services like capacity-enhancement for livelihood, microfinance and job placement.
The key programme instrument was a single registry, ‘Cadastro Unico’, a nationwide central database of poor families. The income level for entry to the Registry was higher than Bolsa famila eligibility. The poverty line recognised for the programme was half the minimum wages. Families identified in extreme poverty level were eligible for a higher transfer amount. Cash was credited monthly preferentially to the female head of the household through an electronic benefit card managed by Caixa, the Federal Bank of Brazil.
Municipalities play a key role in programme design as they identify families that are to be enrolled in the Registry, select the priority group for intervention, monitor compliances and link them with complementary social services in addition to the Bolsa famila cash transfer, which by itself was a very basic level of income support. Formal agreements were signed by the federal Government with the municipal bodies. A decentralised management index was instituted to measure the quality of implementation in various municipalities.
Impact: The programme resulted in rapid reduction of poverty and inequality. Between 2004 and 2014, more than 28.6 million Brazilians escaped poverty with 58 per cent of decline in extreme poverty resulting from this programme. A decline in inequality during this decade witnessed the Gini Index of household incomes falling from 0.57 to 0.52. Targetting accuracy is evidenced from 73 per cent of benefits going to the poorest 20 per cent and 94 per cent to the poorest 40 per cent of the population. A United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) study reports over 80 per cent of benefits going to poor families.
The programme also resulted in higher food consumption and dietary diversification. Beneficiary families engaged with public health systems in a more informed manner, leading to better utilisation of preventive healthcare services, especially for children, higher school attendance, lower dropout rates and reduction in child labour.
These conditions served as positive reinforcement for social behaviour which was also in the interest of the families in consideration. It contributed to improving psychosocial health, including a reduction in suicide rates. Conditionality built into the programme resulted in increased enrollment of children.
An improvement in women’s decision-making status and increased access to the financial system has been reported, too. A stronger Centre-local government collaboration was another interesting outcome, enabling a direct relationship between citizens and the federal Government. Fiscal incentives were useful in strengthening such a collaboration.
Shaping a future programme for India: Even though Bolsa Famila itself has seen highs and lows due to changes in macro-economic conditions and political commitments, insights from its operations can inform social policies that seek to address challenges like deprivation, hunger and loss of jobs. Besides Bolsa familia, CCT programmes in general have demonstrated positive results in improving the lives of people in poverty.
Such cash transfer programmes help the poor and augment national growth by pumping more money and purchasing power into the economy. Linking transfers to certain desirable social behaviours enables the development of a social contract between the Government and citizens. This is useful for improving development indicators in the long-term.
At the same time, it has been recognised that for such cash transfer programmes to make a substantive difference in the lives of people, a simultaneous investment in education, health and infrastructure is crucial. India already has the foundations of a robust service delivery mechanism in place due to policies like Aadhaar and opening of Jan Dhan accounts. The country is well-placed to create a seamless family income programme through convergence of existing schemes like construction worker welfare schemes, maternity benefits, scholarships, pensions, the Public Distribution System and other social welfare programmes.
As we face complex economic challenges resulting from a global pandemic, innovative and tested measures can be very effective in providing relief to those devoid of vital resources to tide over the crisis. It is imperative that migrants, daily wage labourers, construction workers, landless labourers in rural areas and other vulnerable groups are provided immediate relief. It might be the ideal time for the Government to consider instituting a nationwide system of social protection for the vulnerable population through implementation of a comprehensive CCT.
(Writer: Rashmi Singh; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Activist Governors and egoistic Chief Ministers are the last thing India needs, especially during a pandemic
Should State Governors and elected Chief Ministers confront each other even at the time of a crisis? Do we need activist Governors or are they mere figureheads? Do we need the Governors at all or should the post be abolished? These are some of the questions that come to mind in the wake of the recurring disturbing confrontations between the two constitutional offices. It reached a peak last week with some Chief Ministers complaining about it to Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his fourth virtual meeting on the Covid-19 strategy. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee sought Modi’s intervention alleging that Governors were interfering in the State Government’s work and playing politics to hamper the fight against the Coronavirus.
Puducherry Chief Minister V Narayanasamy supported her claim. He complained, “We are facing this in Puducherry, too, where Lieutenant-Governor Kiran Bedi is trying to run a parallel Government despite a judicial snub. We are going to move a contempt notice against her.” Narayanasamy and Bedi have been at loggerheads since the latter assumed office in 2016 with the Chief Minister even saying, “The Centre has appointed a demon.”
Maharashtra Governor BS Koshyari did not cover himself in glory when he decided to swear in BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis in October 2019 in a hurried, private oath-taking ceremony at 7.30 am. Maharashtra also witnessed how Uddhav Thackeray had been kept on tenterhooks about his election to the legislature. Ultimately on the intervention of the Prime Minister, to whom Uddhav had appealed for help, the Governor wrote a letter to the Election Commission to hold polls to the council as a special case.
The situation in Delhi is no better. The relationship between Delhi Chief Minister Kejriwal and the Lieutenant-Governor Anil Baijal and his predecessor Najeeb Jung was quite strained. Kejriwal got some reprieve after the Supreme Court ruled in July 2018 that the Lieutenant -Governor does not have independent decision-making powers and the real power must lie with the elected Government. Baijal had recently written a strongly-worded letter to Kejriwal on the exodus of tens of thousands of migrant workers from the national Capital after Modi announced a nationwide lockdown that caught citizens by surprise. This exodus forced the Centre to ask bordering States to seal their borders and look after the migrants.
Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan has been having differences with the State Government on many issues, including the Government’s stand on the Citizen Amendment Act (CAA). In his address to the Assembly, he read out the prepared speech but also expressed his own views on the CAA.
The ongoing tug of war between Mamata and the Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar has turned ugly in the midst of the Coronavirus crisis. With both asserting their constitutional positions and Mamata alleging that the Governor is overstepping his jurisdiction, West Bengal is witnessing a no holds barred fight. The two have had tense relations since the day Dhankhar took over as Governor last July. There have been many incidents of a verbal clash over several issues, including the law and order situation in the State, to the running of universities. Even though the Prime Minister has praised Mamata for her handling of the pandemic, Dhankhar had continued his criticism, alleging that Mamata had failed to enforce the lockdown. The latest is a warning from Mamata accusing Dhankhar of trying to “usurp powers” amid the Coronavirus crisis. In his letters, Dhankhar had urged Mamata to refrain from indulging in politics during the pandemic.
This brings us to the question what is the role of the Governor? The Constitution empowers him/her to influence the decisions of an elected Government by giving the right “to be consulted, to warn and encourage.” Pertinently, the Sarkaria Commission had recommended that the Governor should be appointed in consultation with the State’s Chief Minister and second, the five-year term of the Governor should not be disturbed except in rare circumstances.
Unfortunately the Governor’s role has been distorted as successive Central Governments from the time of Indira Gandhi had often used and abused the office of the Governor. Indira changed the rules of the game by making loyalty to her the sole merit. But even then, the country never witnessed the kind of acrimony between the Governors and the Chief Ministers that is being seen now.
What is needed today is harmony between the two constitutional posts and not figuring out who is right and who is wrong. Both are expected to function with dignity and decorum. Both are expected to confine themselves to the role envisaged by the framers of the Constitution. Activist Governors and egoistic Chief Ministers are the last thing India needs. As Gopal Krishna Gandhi, himself a former Governor, says in an article, “A Chief Minister actuates a popular mandate, the Governor exercises that all-pervasive moral influence, both together providing the people in their jurisdiction the assurance they are in secure and mutually composed, not conflicted hands.”
(Writer: Kalyani Shankar; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
People and the Opposition have been with the Govt so far. The latter now needs to heed their views on saving the economy
So far, one cannot fault the common citizen or even the Opposition leaders. For they have risen to the occasion and stayed with the Central Government in battling the Coronavirus, be it by observing lockdowns or working out medical protocols. But that does not mean total subservience to “one voice”, the non-questioning of wrong moves or even dismissal of alternative suggestions to get the nation back on track. The viral curve has not flattened despite the lockdown but the economy has surely flatlined and we need cooperative federalism to manage this bigger crisis than resort to ego wars or cheap politics. Fortunately, India has a large resource pool of policy experts and even mature politicians of long standing who can help. So it would make infinite common sense to tap into them. Sadly, the Narendra Modi Government, for all its muscular push on shutting down the nation, had not foreseen the reverse migration of labour or planned a bailout package for an economy that’s grunting, groaning and gasping for breath. Kickstarting agriculture is not the only solution. As companies go under, people lose jobs and State Governments stare at bankruptcies with dipping revenues, some as high as 90 per cent, India would lose more lives to the great economic chaos than the virus. In fact, saving the economy is now the twin pillar of the battle as global studies predict that the pandemic is not going away anywhere soon. And now that allied crises are compounding the disease burden, the Government doesn’t seem to have concrete plans to address either migration or an economic stimulus. Worse, the political ceasefire is over and the blame games have begun. What else explains the distasteful remark by the ruling BJP on Congress president Sonia Gandhi’s offer to pay train fare of migrants from party coffers as an attempt to create Italy everywhere? What lies behind the relentless nitpicking of Opposition-ruled States like Bengal and not self-introspecting on self-ruled States like Gujarat? What explains the decision to make destitute and stranded migrants pay for their return journey on trains when they have had no daily wages over the last month and a half? What explains the rationale of passing the burden to States, who themselves are cash-strapped? What about the accountability of expense patterns from the PM Cares fund, which is seeing contributions pouring in from all sections of society? Of course, there are disturbing reports of a segregatory attitude towards different communities while disbursing COVID-19 relief packages, too. The Centre would do well to assuage these anxieties than smell the familiar Opposition conspiracy. Truth be told, each Chief Minister worth his/her salt, is stepping up to protect his/her respective State. Given the undiagnosed trajectory of the disease or the number of fatalities we might end up with, there’s no way to guarantee that politicking over survival would stand the test of human memory in the next round of polls. That would be too foolish indeed. Wisdom demands that regulated and realistic exit protocols be worked out in a consultative format and not as a bureaucratic imposition.
There was a big question mark on the success of the lockdown given the Indian penchant for indiscipline but people voluntarily complied and willed themselves to stay safe. Similarly, the Opposition Chief Ministers have all worked in tandem with the Centre. But in the end, the lockdown can only buy one time, delay the onslaught of the virus so that anticipatory preparations can be made, not only in managing healthcare but also keeping the economy chugging. As testing gets aggressive, it is clear that the virus has seeped through the trellis of India’s dense population and lockdown or no lockdown, the graph is vertical now. Also, with an extended lockdown testing patience and one’s earning ability, violations are difficult to police. There is no point pondering what could have been done. But the focus should be on what can be done now. Beginning with migrants. If Air India could be used to bring back stranded Indians free from around the world, then the same courtesy can be extended to displaced migrants on trains. They, in the end, do not deserve to be treated like the Stateless. The Railways have already contributed Rs 150 crore to the PM fund and a part of that could be used to cover the expenses. Let us not forget that without labourers at their bases, no business can start operation no matter which zone it is in. So till we facilitate easy movement by train, either to their villages or to their work hubs, no stimulus package can be utilised on the ground. Let’s not forget that labourers are also revolting as the violence in Surat revealed. Shunned by India’s cities, which they built and serviced with their toil and sweat, they were turfed out overnight, forced to stay in under-serviced camps and looked at with suspicion as carriers of a disease they certainly didn’t import. Couldn’t some bit of non-essential railway infrastructure be slowed down or stalled temporarily to take care of India’s unorganised workforce, believed to be around 10 crore, to keep the economy moving? Some relief could be allocated from the National Disaster Management fund, too. The third promised stimulus is still coming. The non-action now won’t be forgotten but the rhetoric certainly will be.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Will the chaos outside liquor vends defeat all that was achieved over the last 40 days? Certainly, it could have been managed well
There is no doubt that revenues collected by States across the country have been pummelled by the 40-day shutdown. With commerce shut, Goods and Service Tax (GST) collections have collapsed. Fewer people moving around has meant petroleum taxes are minimal and most States, with the exceptions of Bihar and Gujarat, had huge revenue collections coming in from liquor sales. After losing access to beer, wine and spirits ever since the lockdown came into force, it was not just the public that wanted to enjoy a chilled beer but also various State Governments who were looking for ways to increase revenues. But much like what happened during the lockdown, a well-intentioned move to open the liquor vends has been managed haphazardly. Huge crowds, extending upto one to two kilometres were seen outside major vends. With no social distancing norms being followed, this defeated the very purpose of the last 40 days of lockdown. However, as chaos has been the order of the day in the past few weeks, with conflicting orders, shut borders and more, it seems almost asinine that a bureaucrat or politician would have believed that opening liquor stores would have been a smooth process. Even in normal times, we have seen long queues in front of liquor shops, especially on weekends. Is there a better way to do this? Maybe the Aarogya Setu application, which the Government has been touting over the past few weeks, would have helped manage the crowd, which has been abysmal in Delhi, Mumbai and other major cities across India. Of course, there are huge privacy and data security issues with any application, which must be addressed, but the only way to have assured the sale of liquor smoothly would have been to involve the application, and possibly home delivery in certain cases. This would not have been an easy fix but if the simple objective is to prevent crowding at the vends as well as hoarding, this is what should have been done. State Governments, too, need to answer on whether the additional revenues will be worth the health risk.
That said, the progress of the COVID-19 pandemic has been strange in India. Despite the fact that several malcontent commentators professed that India would see a surge of deaths, the number of deaths attributed to the pandemic has been limited. The lockdown has ensured that India has managed better than many developed countries. There has been no hard and fast science over here, nobody knows what works and what doesn’t. However, one thing is certain across the world, social distancing works. While opening the liquor vends was a smart move, it was handled poorly.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Zafarul Islam Khan’s attempt to reach out to the Muslim world is an affront to the core values of our secular Constitution. His comments are detestable and must be contested
Even as India is grappling with the monstrous Coronavirus and every organ of the State is doing its best to contain the spread of the pandemic, the Chairman of the Delhi Minorities Commission, Zafarul Islam Khan, publicly declared that Muslims are being “persecuted” in the country. He has taken, what one would consider, the most irresponsible step by reaching out to the Muslim world for help. He thanked the Government of Kuwait “for standing with the Indian Muslims.” Khan has since partially retracted his statement but the damage is done because he persists in saying that Muslims are being persecuted in our country.
In his first Facebook post, he had said that Indian Muslims had “opted until now” not to complain to the Arab and Muslim world about the hate campaigns against them. He then warned that “the day they are pushed to that (complaining to the Muslim world), bigots will face an avalanche.” Well, Mr Khan, under our Constitution and the laws, you do not have the “option,” which you imagine you have. Our Constitution and our laws strictly forbid citizens from behaving in this manner. While Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, Article 19(2) imposes “reasonable restrictions,” which pertain to the “sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order… and incitement to an offence.” In other words, the State has the right to make laws to ensure that no individual commits these infringements. Hence the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deal with these matters.
Despite holding an important public office — there are lakhs of our fellow citizens who are Muslims and who are holding public offices in this country — Khan has sought to run down the nation he belongs to. This writer is of the view that his attempt to reach out to the Muslim world is an affront to the core values of our secular Constitution; it constitutes denigration of the nation he belongs to; and disturbs the sovereignty and integrity of India because he sought the help of other nations for a section of India’s citizenry. It affects public order because his petition to the Muslim world will offend the senses of 85 per cent of the country’s citizens, who are not Muslims and many Muslims themselves, who will feel that this is an act of betrayal. Consequently, this could result in incitement to an offence. Finally, it is certain to disturb friendly relations with the Arab world — a relationship that is very dear to every Indian from the days of former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and former Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation Yasser Arafat.
The Delhi Police has acted promptly in this case. They have filed an FIR against Khan under Sections 124A and 153 A of the IPC, which deal with sedition and promoting enmity among different groups. So now, the law will take its course. But what Khan has done goes well beyond legal niceties and courtroom dramas. It is a warning bell for every citizen, who wishes to preserve the secular, liberal and democratic Constitution that our founding fathers have given us. Will we keep it or lose it, thanks to the follies of Khans of this world?
His original comments are indeed detestable and must, therefore, be contested vehemently. In that statement, Khan also revealed the kind of company he keeps. He had said Zakir Naik, who is spreading communal venom, is a “respected household name.”
Seeking the interference of another country in India’s internal affairs is an act of treachery. This should never be countenanced because, in a democracy, various groups will always have some grouse or another. India’s Constitution has created an elaborate mechanism to address these grievances and to find solutions. Apart from the two Houses of Parliament and the legislative Assemblies in all States, the nation has a strong, robust and independent judiciary that even has the power to strike down Constitutional amendments enacted by Parliament.
The country also boasts of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the National Minorities Commission (NMC) and similar institutions in States as also the Central Information Commission (CIC). To top it all, India has a vibrant media that reflects every aspect of the country’s plurality — one look at the abuses and barbs flung at Prime Minister Narendra Modi by Muslim leaders and their flunkies on television debates and on Twitter, Facebook and other social media outlets will give you an idea of how “persecuted” the Muslims are in our country.
Should they be citizens of the Islamic nations who are being beseeched by Khan and should they try something like this on the leaders of those nations, they would be heading straight to the gallows. Also, some of the highly provocative and distasteful videos circulated by Muslim youth against Hindus in recent months would surely be additional evidence of the “persecution of Muslims” that Khan is talking about. Or, are we to believe that he has not seen any of this?
Now, onto the Tablighi Jamaat. When all the temples and churches in the country were closed, including the temple of Lord Balaji in Tirupati, why did the Tablighi Jamaat flout Government orders? Why did it hold the conference in Delhi in the second half of March with foreign delegates, which resulted in the rapid spread of the virus in the country? Are the Tablighis above the law? And why have they been spitting and abusing doctors and nurses in different parts of the country? Are they devoid of basic manners?
When all this was reported in the media, Khan declares that India is in the grip of Islamophobia. Did you, Khan, advise the Tablighis to behave? Have you no responsibility in this regard?
Annie Besant and BR Ambedkar had the prescience to anticipate this problem — of Indian Muslims seeking Muslim brotherhood and camaraderie outside the nation they belong to. In her book, The Future of Indian Politics, Annie Besant said in 1922 that “the primary allegiance of the musalmans (Muslims) is to Islamic countries, not to our motherland.” She said their attitude was “subversive of civic order and the stability of the State. It makes them bad citizens for their centre of allegiance is outside their nation and … they cannot be trusted by their fellow citizens.”
Annie Besant sounds prophetic when we read the statement of Zafarul Islam Khan but let us not forget that millions of Muslims, who work in every sphere of life including the armed forces, scientific laboratories, academia, entertainment and the crafts, have made us proud. Several of them have achieved the pinnacle of success like former Presidents Abdul Kalam, Zakir Hussain and Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed and Bharat Ratna Ustad Bismillah Khan. All this has been possible because of the rhythm and harmony created by our Constitution to enable each one of us to chase our dreams in an environment that breeds equality and fraternity. We should not allow a few malcontents like Khan to disturb this.
(Writer: A Surya Prakash; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Curbs have been eased but with existing chains broken, a stimulus and a new work code won’t perk up the economy
Certain truths are too glaring to ignore. Like the fact that most metro cities are on a virus spiral and are fully red, which means they need to be contained if we do not want an apocalyptic slide into chaos. Unlike most world cities, Indian ones have a high population density. Toying with herd immunity, like the way Sweden has done, moving a younger population outside while keeping the vulnerable indoors, is too huge a risk to take and monitor. But lockdown 3 also means that the economic activity, which has been enabled with easing of restrictions, won’t quite pick up pace because the disease hotspots also happen to be the country’s economic hubs. And while the rural economy has got a push in disease-free zones, MGNREGA work has seen record enrollment and returnee migrants are signing up for village schemes and infrastructure, the urban economy is still some time away from whirring back to life. Now the ease of doing business is still too sporadic to have any accelerating impact on the economy. Cities can only avail essential goods and services, so the big push that consumption was supposed to get isn’t happening because suppliers have a limited range to operate within, non-essential goods strictly off the list for the time being. Non-essential single shops are allowed to be open only in safe zones, that too with truncated hours. Certainly not in red clusters. And although the Government has allowed 33 per cent staff of industrial units and firms to be operational even in red zones, the protocol is yet to be figured out in different States, so implementation and synergising a work flow within new rules and codes are not only time-consuming but slow down movement. This logistical mismatch is one of the reasons why even those who can run businesses are feeling hemmed in. Of course, the reverse migration has meant a chronic shortage of labourers and they are not likely to return in the near future. In fact, businesses will now have to offer other incentives and living quarters to hold back labourers. Then there are issues like sourcing of raw material, movement of products, supply chain disruptions due to the forced closure of factories of suppliers and ancillaries, all of which are just about lurching forward in fits and starts. Even while a third economic stimulus is in the works, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi personally looking to put the economy back on keel, industry and investors are not finding enough confidence yet. Experts are worried that the foreign capital outflow taking place from India is bigger than from any other emerging economy, $15 billion leaking in March alone. With the private sector choked, global players are leveraging other economies. The rupee is weaker than ever before and we must seem convincing enough as a future market.
Meanwhile, the Government has a tough task opening up the economy without risking a health disaster. Any meaningful stimulus would need a minimum Rs 6 lakh crore as we stare at a prolonged trough till the disease curve flattens out. While dry rations may not be a problem, even usual consumer goods are now in short supply. While we have been able to rush essentials for a while given existing stocks, the cessation of production, the lack of packaging and processing and breakage in the logistics chain mean that consumer goods are going to be available in limited numbers. Nearly 43 per cent of the 157 units owned by FMCG majors are in the Coronavirus red zones in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and West Bengal. Besides, with asymptomatic carriers going around, distancing, hygiene and other protocols at our factories need to be executed with military precision and precaution. So if green zones are opened and anything between 25-83 per cent people are asymptomatic carriers, infections will spike. Monitoring markets and mandis poses a huge challenge, so a rotational format of days when these will be open along with staggered times must be worked out before hand. Most importantly, every local administrative authority down to the panchayat level will have to be empowered to run territories with efficiencies. The first lockdown gave us some time to prepare healthcare facilities for an expected surge. This lockdown should be about creating an enabling atmosphere and inculcating discipline and compliance among people. For without adherence to exit protocols, there would be no economy left at all. The problem is not of choice but the will to get going.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Well-meaning yes, but Rahul Gandhi needs to convince people with hands-on leadership than online conversations
It is tough to be in Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s shoes these days. For no matter what his best intentions are, nobody buys his attempt to mean serious business in COVID-19 times. Or his effort to be a credible determinant of national revival as a concerned citizen-volunteer. The timing of the makeover is a tad too late, howsoever eager and convincing he might want to appear. Even if he does get the Congress’ reins, there’s a long way before he gets taken seriously as a national alternative. The way he handled the last Lok Sabha debacle of the Congress, barely able to demonstrate proof that his leadership did work in reinvigorating India’s grand old party, hasn’t been lost on people’s minds, even among those willing to give him the benefit of doubt. Recalcitrance, of the kind he demonstrated by resigning and hiding in the woods of Wayanad simply because the old guard didn’t go along with him, didn’t show him up as a leader who could rebuild. Or take everybody along step by step despite the odds. Rather he was seen as a quitter who had plunged the Congress into a cesspool of stagnation topped by the residue of dynastic politics. Over months of absence from political life and pushing himself into an abyss of irrelevance meant he became the subject of public ridicule. Loyalist partymen may have tried projecting him as their prince but his wilful transgressions over the months have only lent credence to the BJP’s campaign of him being a “Pappu.” So though he is crafting an image change in the middle of a pandemic, appearing to contribute to the national revival effort, it’s not reaping results. Particularly at a time when capable leaders of the Congress have proven their mettle as Chief Ministers in the battle against the pandemic, be it Rajasthan’s Ashok Gehlot or Punjab’s Amarinder Singh. Both incidentally are the old guard. So though Rahul has been making the right projections about the COVID-19 crisis in India since February and justifiably raised some questions before the Government on social media, his party colleagues on the ground got all the attention. Besides, the Opposition Chief Ministers, too, are going out an arm and a leg to contain the disease spiral and Rahul, at this point of time, doesn’t seem hands-on enough. Even his think tank-like advisories seem too tutored and self-serving than well-meaning.
But to his credit, his recent attempts have been at least sincere. He performed creditably at a recent press conference, too, where he refused to be baited by journalists into commenting on the shortcomings of the lockdown. The Congress’ latest plan to rebrand him as a serious ideologue and a thinking leader will see him participate in a series of online conversations with public intellectuals, the idea being to strip down his dynastic entitlements and project him as a leader who has every issue in his grasp. The first of these publicised dialogues got off with economist and former RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan. Not entirely a bad one as Rajan made some specific observations about a post-COVID scenario, like an infusion of Rs 65,000 crore for the poor. But the point is Rajan has already made revival recommendations on various fora and will probably be heard and consulted. He won’t need Rahul’s forum to establish his credentials. On the other hand, when Rajan asked him to compare the response to COVID in India and the US, all Rahul could come up with was the social inequity in our country in getting treatment. Clearly, his critics made mincemeat of him for not seeing through the US oversight of the situation, Trump’s flip flops and absurd theories and that nation’s own discriminatory tests. Perhaps Rajan was a bit taken aback, too. And if the Congress had thought that appropriating Rajan would mean taking on the BJP, the economist himself was reasonably careful not to fall into that trap and said things like they should be at this moment of crisis. The Congress shouldn’t try to make Rahul look “sharp” and then land with a PR disaster. Experts from India feature in world institutions and the Government could requisition their services anytime in rebuilding the nation. Rahul’s conversations won’t change that. But what he and his strategists must do is to diminish the trust deficit in him as a leader and build on his natural strengths like when he did padayatras and entered people’s homes. Perhaps, he could lead a pan-India Congress community kitchen and health camp project to help the poor and migrants and rebuild the human touch that he had lost over the last few months. Perhaps, he could take up cases of starting up local economies. He has enough advisors, too, he just needs to show that he can be a leader through such simple connects.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month