It’s unexpected that parliamentarians and seasoned lawyers have questioned the right of Rajya Sabha Chairman to keep his statement at the admission stage to remove the CJI Dipak Misra

The decision of Venkaiah Naidu, the Vice President and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, to reject the notice for impeachment of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, has been questioned by the Congress and some others who were signatories to the petition. A news agency report claimed that the Congress had “lashed out” at the Chairman for passing such an “illegal order”. Sitaram Yechury, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) was quoted as saying that the Chairman “does not have the discretion to independently decide about the validity of the motion”. Kapil Sibal of the Congress claimed that “never before in India’s history” had a motion moved by MPs been dismissed at the preliminary stage”.

While the aggrieved MPs are entitled to question the Chairman’s decision, some of the claims made by them — that the law does not permit rejection of the notice at the preliminary stage and that this has never happened before — are wholly incorrect.

The argument that the law does not permit the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, to apply his mind and take a call on whether or not to admit the motion of impeachment, is absolutely false. Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, clearly states that “the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman may, after consulting such persons, if any, as he thinks fit and after considering such materials, if any, as may be available to him, either admit the motion or refuse the admit the same”. Therefore, there can be no ambiguity whatsoever in regard to the power of the Chairman to reject the motion at the preliminary stage.

Second, as regards precedents, the very first petition filed in the Lok Sabha after the Judges (Inquiry) Act came into being was rejected by Speaker GS Dhillon in 1970, when the Congress was in power at the Centre. The Speaker found the petition against Justice JC Shah of the Supreme Court, signed by 199 MPs to be ‘frivolous” and also ensured that nothing was brought on record in regard to the allegations against the judge.

Further, the arguments advanced by the Congress at this juncture are indeed strange because it was this very party which did not support the impeachment motion against Justice Ramaswami of the Supreme Court. As against the vague, “may be, may not be” averments against the present Chief Justice, the motion against Justice V Ramaswami of the Supreme Court in 1993, was loaded with grave charges of an unprecedented nature. The Inquiry Committee comprising three judges, which probed the charges, held him guilty of “willful and gross misuse of office…… moral turpitude and bringing dishonor to the judiciary”. The Congress did not support the impeachment motion against such a judge and his lawyer and chief defender at that time was Kapil Sibal.

Finally, when one examines the history of the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, which was first mooted in 1964, one realises that some of the best legal minds in the country at that time were strongly in favour of the Speaker or Chairman taking a call on admissibility of a notice of impeachment.

The Government referred the Bill to a joint committee of Parliament. Many eminent jurists and parliamentary experts, including MN Kaul, former Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha and co-author of the most authoritative text on the practice and procedure in Parliament, CK Daphtary, the then Attorney General of India, MC Setalvad, LM Singhvi, MC Chatterjee, GS Pathak, PN Sapru and KK Shah appeared before this committee in 1966. Following the committee’s report, the Government amended the proposed legislation and it was finally passed in 1968. The deliberations of this committee, the opinion tendered by experts before it and the final recommendations are illuminating and relevant to the issue at hand.

MN Kaul, categorically told the committee that whenever a complaint is lodged against a judge, “it is necessary for the Speaker/Chairman to consider whether any prima facie case is made out”.  He told the committee that Meghnad Saha, an eminent scientist, lodged a complaint against a judge leading to the first case of this kind after the Constitution came into being. The notice was sent to Speaker Mavalankar who felt that “it was necessary to first find out if there was a prima facie case to admit the notice”. Kaul recalled Mavalankar’s conversation with the complainant.

What the Speaker told Saha that day over six decades ago has great relevance even today and has a bearing on the present case vis-à-vis the Rajya Sabha Chairman’s approach to the notice against Chief Justice Misra.

According to Kaul, this is what Speaker Mavalankar told the complainant: “Look here, you have given notice; you are an eminent member and I know that you may have some prima facie evidence, but it is my duty as a Speaker, to satisfy myself…initially it is my power and responsibility to admit it or not to admit it. I think I should view it with an extremely critical eye; that is to say if I have no recourse left, then in those circumstances alone I will place this on the order paper”. Kaul told the committee that that it was incumbent on the Speaker “to check and verify the allegations initially”. He said the Home Minister, the Chief Justice and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru supported what the Speaker did.

Kaul was absolutely certain that the Speaker could admit the motion only if he found a prima facie case. Also, that the Speaker could dismiss the motion “if it was frivolous”. He categorically stated that “No Member of Parliament should think that when he moves a motion, the charges are proved. He has only started the machinery to go into action. At that stage if the member does not satisfy the Speaker about a prima facie case, the Speaker may say that he is not satisfied or that there is no basis”. KK Shah told the committee that “there should be no character assassination before proof”.  MC Setalvad, another eminent jurist, told the committee that discussion about the conduct of the judge must be avoided at the initial stage.

After hearing all these experts, the joint committee of Parliament decided that when a notice is given, the Speaker or Chairman may consult such persons as he deems fit and also gather material and eventually “either admit or reject the motion”. This opinion of the joint committee stands incorporated in Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, which is in vogue today.

It is, therefore, surprising to hear seasoned lawyers and parliamentarians question the right of the Chairman to apply his mind at the admission stage.

Writer: A Surya prakash

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Although the results of the Wuhan Summit are yet to be announced, our PM, Narendra Modi, definitely set the agenda.

Even his worst critics will give Prime Minister Narendra Modi at least two cheers for his recent diplomatic achievement in lifting the India-China relationship above the common bitterness prevalent till the other day to a higher, summit-level engagement that lays out a calibrated action plan to serve the set objective of normalising relations between the two Asian giants. This is statesmanship of the highest order. That the summit was deliberately kept ‘informal’ was a part of statesmanship. The chances of success of this unprecedented initiative will depend on whether the two leaders have measured each other’s intention — explicit or otherwise — correctly.

Chinese President Xi Jinping understood that his guest is not a namby-pamby idealist as was Jawaharlal Nehru when the then Chinese Premier, Zhou Enlai, descended on New Delhi suddenly in the early 1960s. At that moment, there was intense tension in the relationship between the two Asian neighbours. And the Indian leader was sadly under the miasma of China, convinced that it will not wage a war to grab more of Indian territory. President Xi, on the other hand, got a taste of the present Indian Prime Minister over Doklam. That Modi is not vulnerable to pressure when dealing with an adversary was what Doklam demonstrated. If necessary, he would have been ready for a tit-for-tat and he knew exactly how far his rival would go. Thus, Doklam was a tipping point in India-China relations, enabling both parties to measure each other correctly. India now has strong backing from US President Donald Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Earlier, China’s hegemonist plans in the South Sea as also elsewhere had driven South-East Asian nations to build economic and political relationship with the India-US-Japan-Australia linkage to counter Chinese pressure.

After the Indian refusal to participate in Chinese sponsored One Belt One Road conference as a protest against China’s policies and New Delhi’s strategic/defence deals with US-Japan, it must have been clear to President Xi that he was dealing with a rival who will not yield to pressure tactics but is perfectly amenable to rational discussion. Indian critics of Modi, who bemoaned the absence of reference to Doklam in the Wuhan talks, should have remembered that the tipping point was not under discussion. The future course of action was. What Modi and Xi discussed will not be known at present. In fact, many Asian nations will be watching with concern and interest whether Beijing will pursue a hegemonic or a peaceful path in South and South-East Asia. India will be watching for moderation in China’s policies in Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and other neighbouring countries where India has deep interests. The decision of the two Governments to aid Afghanistan to withstand terrorist attacks and aid economic development is one such welcome outcome of the Wuhan summit.

But it must be asked whether Beijing will be giving up on its policy of edging out India from Nepal; Modi has indicated that India is going to defend its interests in Nepal with all its might — his telling Nepal’s new Government that if it prefers China to India in financing its hydro-electric project, India will not buy the power generated by it. Many analysts would have noted a sudden turn round in President Xi’s handling of North Korea, which has been making threats to destroy US and Japan with nuclear-tipped missiles and which provoked Trump to say that he has firepower enough to wipe out North Korea even before Kim Jong-un’s first missile reaches its destination. Only China could tame Kim and Xi did so after the North Korean dictator was asked to rush to Beijing in a special train. Events since then have lowered significantly the 30-year tension between the Koreas, no doubt a welcome development in a world full of strife and faith-based wars.

A declaration came on the part of Kim that he will discontinue nuclear tests to enable, perhaps, Trump to come to the peace zone between the two Koreas to meet with the North’s ‘Great Leader’ is a message from President Xi now that the ruling establishment in Beijing has confirmed him as President of China for life. The Chinese President would now project his new image of a peacemaker with the whole of his country behind him for the immediate future. He could not do so with India-China tension building up to a point of no-return and is therefore likely to want to do his best to de-escalate it. We can watch for the progress towards that in the coming months. It is Indian territory that the Chinese are occupying, his guest from India might have tried to put across to him. Which means it is in China’s interest to demonstrate progress in negotiations on the border. We can wait and watch whether that will take place.

Modi is just about a year from a General Election in India where most analysts give him another five-year term. So, the time to strike a deal and strengthen stability across the Asian continent is now for both President Xi and Prime Minister Modi. The problem remains with an unstable Pakistan where fundamentalist forces, its Army as also the civil administration are in a constant battle for power. Unfortunately, this criticality also coincides with the rise of international terrorism from Pakistani soil. Beijing has to assure international opinion that it is against terror yet it has to support Pakistan’s terror chiefs like Hafiz Saeed because the civilian government in Islamabad cannot afford to try him despite the US Administration demanding it and withholding its annual two billion dollar aid to the Pakistan military.

China has chosen a Janus-faced policy on Hafiz. On the one hand, it is supporting his ‘freedom’ while on the other assuring everybody that it is against terror. Again, we will have to watch for any sign of a change in policy after the exchange of views between the Chinese and Indian leaders in Wuhan. Modi has to convince his people in an election year that the tango with Xi has been worth the while for peace and stability and to work towards making the 21st century an Asian century. Equally important for him is to take tangible steps to bridge the widening trade gap in China’s favour, thanks to the cheap inflow Chinese goods which have flooded the Indian market and dealt a huge blow to small Indian enterprises.

But it looks like Modi’s China visit has started bearing some fruit. China has exempted import tariffs for 28 drugs, including all cancer drugs, from 1 May. According to the National Cancer Institute, the market for antineoplastic drugs used to fight tumours in China exceeds 120 billion Yuan (about 19.1 billion US Dollars).

(The writer is a political commentator and a former BJP Rajya Sabha MP)

Writer: Balbir Punj

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The upcoming year, 2019, will be full of an existential challenge for congress. Cambridge Analytica suggested that the party will reorganize and rebrand themselves. It is strategically planned for 2019 polls of Karnataka, MP, Chhattisgarh elections, to ‘disrupt’ BJP monopoly. As the Bharatiya Janata Party Pushed to the back foot, Congress will try their best to set the narrative.

In an assessment submitted soon after the Bharatiya Janata Party’s resounding victory in the Uttar Pradesh election of 2017, the now controversial Cambridge Analytica observed that the Congress needs emphatic wins in Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh to send out a clear message of change to the rest of India, giving it “winning momentum” in the 2019 Lok Sabha poll. Unsurprisingly, these are precisely the States where the Congress is waging a no-holds-barred war with the BJP.

Titled, ‘Indian National Congress: Data-Driven Campaign — The Path to the 2019 Lok Sabha’, the study advises the Congress to make “radical changes to its campaign methodology and infrastructure if it is to reverse the formidable political current running against it. A ‘business-as-usual’ approach — or even a substantial increase in campaign spend using the same traditional methods — simply will not cut it”.

Regaining the initiative calls for an in-depth understanding of the Indian people, what they really think and feel, what motivates and drives their behaviour, and their propensity for change; an invigorated leadership, brand identity and vision which captures the imagination of a dynamic but polarised and disillusioned nation, and offers a new narrative of hope and change; and effective, nimble and highly targeted communications capability which cuts through the noise with coherent, credible and consistent messaging which reaches audiences and has a measurable effect on their attitudes and behaviour.

Achieving this will require a robust data-driven campaign. Cambridge Analytica claims that its ability to model, segment and micro-target the population with personalised messaging catapulted Donald Trump to the White House, a fact acknowledged by Hillary Clinton. It assures that it can do the same for the Congress in the coming 18 months, at both national and State level, as it is accomplished in “behaviour change” campaigns.

The study shows a good grasp of the Indian political firmament. Of the eight State elections in 2018, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh are identified as most significant, especially in the national campaign. The Congress’ rout in the 2017 Uttar Pradesh elections has increased the stakes in Karnataka, which it won with a large majority in 2013, and fared well in by-elections in 2017.

The Karnataka Assembly election will focus around the Cauvery water-sharing dispute, drought relief, farm loan-waivers, imposition of Hindi (strange) and the fate of minorities and “oppressed” communities (read Scheduled Castes). It notes that while some issues are state-specific, others like poverty and religious or caste conflict apply across the country. It’s amazing how charges of religion and caste-based prejudice have reverberated across the nation in recent months.

Analytica adds that the BJP, aware of Karnataka’s importance, had begun strategic research in all 224 constituencies in 2017, to identify issues, candidates and winning prospects. In Uttar Pradesh, the party waged a ‘smartphone battle’ using big data and social media, and will use it on a larger scale in the technological capital of India, by launching Whatsapp groups to create echo chambers in all regions of the State. The Congress must regain the initiative by ensuring that its campaign is fully data-driven and its communication is digitally-focused.

Madhya Pradesh, with 90 per cent Hindu and 20 per cent tribal population, has a large number of jobless, well-educated youth, and agricultural workers. The BJP has held the State since 2003, but currently faces challenges, mainly due to farmer unrest. The farmers’ movement (2017) showed the power of social media and mobile technology in mobilising movements and ideas in the countryside. Analytica believes that the Congress has a real chance in Madhya Pradesh and should conduct a deep study to understand the grievances and motivations of the electorate and then micro-target people in rural areas.

Chhattisgarh is resource-rich and fast developing State, but has the lowest living standards and infrastructure development. Over 80 per cent is rural and farming population are unhappy. Though the BJP has been in power since 2003, the Congress has a better chance here, having lost recent elections very narrowly. Also, the decline in Maoist activity will stimulate higher voting in previously low turnout areas. Cambridge Analytica suggests that the Congress must collect data to understand the issues that will give it the edge in a 93 per cent Hindu State, and alter national attitudes in 2019.

The 2014 general election was a disaster for the Congress; it won just 44 seats and lost even the Opposition status. It suffered loss of reputation due to allegations of corruption, disunity, sycophancy and nepotism, and the growing wealth gap and economic disparity. For 2019, Cambridge Analytica said that by November 2017, it would undertake a comprehensive review of the Congress’s existing communications capability to project factors that will determine success in the pan-Indian context. It would complete a Data Gap Analysis, “designed to extract maximum value from your data assets, leverage third-party data, and use these resources to enable data-driven marketing and research”.

Between end-2017 till 2019, a complex National Data Infrastructure Project will help mount a powerful national campaign around “actionable” groups (that share similar characteristics and can be targeted accordingly) within the population so that the Congress can develop a strategic communications plan tailored to the issues and concerns of each target audience.

The strategy will highlight the topics, policies and even the media channels that are best suited to resonate with different audience groups and segments of society, thus enabling the Congress to take the right message to the right people, in 2018 and beyond, and make them go and vote (Get Out The Vote). Cambridge Analytica says it can give a special edge, as it did for President Trump, by predicting how voters think and behave, so they can be targeted: “Crucially, we will also identify which voters are likely to support the INC”.

For the Congress, 2019 represents an existential challenge. Cambridge Analytica says it must rebrand and reorganise or struggle to survive as a major political institution. For a preliminary report, this is a competent analysis. However, after the data misuse scandal burst in London and Washington, and the Government of India demanded information on the use of citizen’s data, it is unclear if the Congress or other political parties will use, or admit using, the firm in the State and national elections.

Certainly, the advice to use high voltage campaigns to grab eyeballs across the country — stifling dissent, anti-Scheduled Caste bias, film Padmavat, Kathua murder case, judges appointments, impeachment of the Chief Justice of India, et al — have pushed the BJP on the back foot. It may have recovered in each case, but it is yet to seize control of the narrative.

(The writer is Senior Fellow, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library; the views expressed are personal)

Writer: Sandhya Jain

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The government has started supplying electricity to every village in the country, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced, a big achievement that now shifts country’s attention towards improving the quality of electricity supply to connect every household to the grid.

Leisang in the hills of Manipur became the 597,464th and the last census village in India to get connected to the electricity grid of the country. This is a remarkable achievement and although work had been going on over the last two decades at a constant pace, it must be said that the Narendra Modi Government had the toughest challenge to connect some of India’s remotest and furthest habitations. This achievement should not be mocked. While some are making a hullabaloo over a supposed image by the US Space agency NASA, the fact is that anybody, who travelled on a night flight over India back in the early-2000’s, could easily tell the difference that the past two decades have made. Far from flying over the heart of darkness, if one caught a flight between Chennai and Delhi, today you can look down from a window seat and see several patches of light where earlier there were none. It has been pointed out, repeatedly one must add, by those pathologically opposed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi that this achievement does not mean that every household has electricity. Which is something the Government realises. Last October, it emerged that almost 36.8 million rural homes did not have access to any form of electricity in India. Since then, according to Government data, only 13 per cent of those homes have been electrified in the last few months. But 30 million homes remain to be electrified and that is not all. Across the country, several million homes, even in urban areas, do not have access to guaranteed 24×7 power. So much so that whole industries have popped up in India, trying to cover the infrastructure gap — inverters and generators.

This challenge is being tackled by the Government and Narendra Modi promised last October that he intends to have electricity in 40 million homes unconnected to the grid by March 2019 under the Saubhagya scheme, which is as ambitious as the very successful ‘Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana’ and ‘UJALA’ schemes that provided cooking gas and LED lights across the country. However, in meeting the challenge while sticking to our emissions commitments made at global forums will require juggling the needs to lifting millions of Indians out of extreme poverty along with the needs of the planet. While India has taken massive steps towards renewable energy, much of the additional energy demanded in bringing millions of new households into the grid will be through thermal energy generated by coal which will belch billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This will lead India down a tightrope because given vast swathes of low-lying areas as well as suffering extreme weather phenomena, India will be heavily affected by global warming. We do need to do our utmost to ensure that every single Indian has access to electricity as the 21st century heads into its third decade. Doing that while ensuring that the world will survive as an habitable planet into the twenty-second century will be a major challenge.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Since the formation of Uttarakhand, declaring Gairsain as the capital as always been in question. Swagata Sinha Roy and DK Budakoti speculate that this demand is linked with the public and political ethos of the state.

The ongoing agitation in the State of Uttarakhand for a permanent capital in the small hill town of Gairsain in the interiors of Chamoli district, is once again making news. The issue of permanent capital at Gairsain was proposed by regional political outfits and social activists much before the formation of the State in November 9, 2000.

However, Dehradun was made the temporary capital as a permanent one was not mentioned when the Bill for the State formation was passed in the Parliament.

The history of the state formation has its roots in the identity of local people and the issue of development. Now, despite almost 18 years of State formation, the issue of development, employment and migration have not been addressed; in fact, they have only been aggravated over the years.

The issue of migration has been a long on-going matter with the academia and in the development NGOs sector. Today, the Government recognises the seriousness of the issue and Government website mentions that, “Migration from rural areas in Uttarakhand is a serious problem with a comparison between 2001 and 2011 Census data showing a very slow decadal growth of population in most of the mountain districts of the State.

An absolute decline in the population of Almora and Pauri Garhwal districts between 2001 and 2011 points towards a massive out flux of people from many hill regions of the State. The pace of out-migration is such that many of the villages are left with a population in double digits.

Data also points towards a high rate of decadal increase in population in districts like Dehradun, Udham Singh Nagar, Nainital and Haridwar while this is negative in Pauri and Almora districts and abnormally low decadal increase in Tehri, Bageshwar, Chamoli, Rudraprayag and Pithoragarh districts.”

This shows that the Government of Uttarakhand is apprised of the situation and has formed the Uttarakhand Rural Development and Migration Commission. The official website also mentions the mandate of the Commission that, “the Uttarakhand Government has constituted the Rural Development and Migration Commission in August 2017, to examine all aspects of the problem, evolve a vision for the focused development of the rural areas of the State; advice the Government on multi-sectoral development at the grassroots levels which would aggregate at the district and state levels and also submit recommendations to the Government on various other related matters.”

Today, local political and social activists and general populace of the hills feel that the formation of the State has not been fruitful as expected and one of the reasons is

having Dehradun as a temporary capital of the State. Although when the BJP and Congress were in Opposition, they paid lip service to make Gairsain the permanent capital of the State.

Gairsain as a permanent capital  is not an emotional issue but a rational one, as the premise is based on the paradigm that a capital in the interiors will usher in development in the hills.

A capital in the interior hill area will make the political leadership and bureaucracy sensitive to the hardship faced by the people, thereby improve basic amenities, viz. water, electricity, health and education.

With the shifting of political centre and the official machinery, the related infrastructure will be planned in the area leading to development through, what is called in development and economic theory, as the ‘trickling down effect’.

Thus, the whole agitation and campaign is based on the premise that a capital in the interiors will usher in development of the ‘State Capital Region’  (SCR) and subsequently the development of the State at large, particularly the hill regions.

(The writers are freelance commentators)

Writer: Swagata Sinha Roy and DK Budakoti

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Apart from so many political union and varied society in India that were corrupting the head of the nation, Prime Minister Modi has come up clean to assault all political storms and ensure the success of his vision.

I don’t have any love for Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But as an Indian who is committed to safeguarding and promoting the values of the Indian Constitution, I am keen to support the positive initiatives of the Prime Minister.

In a society, which is highly divisive, politically hot and diverse in different aspects, it is nothing but natural to villainise the head of the nation. Modi is known to have weathered these political storms and has come out clean to ensure the successful staging of his visionary schemes and policies.

Somewhere he might have slipped inadvertently but that is common to any human being. however, in the overall perspective, it is clear that Modi is standing tall in promoting the welfare of India and its citizens. According to the Prime Minister’s official website, he had travelled to nearly 70 countries and  has spend around Rs 250 crore in the last four and half years.

What did he bring in from these foreign visits? He made sure that India becomes a nation to be watched seriously by the entire world.

He showcased the strengths of India, pursued the international countries to lend support to counter the terrorists operating in foreign soils against India, brought in a huge capital, technology and innovative ideas to transform the country.

Indeed India is transforming at a rapid speed and the world is watching keenly. Modi’s foreign visits have reformed and transformed the Indian economy and society in a massive way. It needs guts of steel to counter the mammoth Chinese strength in the Asian continent and wider will to play on the front foot with the world as the stage. In both ways, the Modi Government has achieved quite remarkably.

Pakistan was sending terrorists across the border and playing cricket and simultaneously distributing sweets on Holi and Diwali. Modi made sure that multi-tricked Pakistan is exposed. He smartly succeeded in bringing out the evil designs of Pakistan. The United States has held the funds for terrorists operating against India. It has also blocked the funds for Pakistan.

A famous pro Indian Republican Larry Pressler  in his book Neighbours in Arms: An American Senator’s Quest for Disarmament in a Nuclear Subcontinent  gives a clear picture of the US’s actions against these terrorist networks operating from Pakistan. He thanks US President Donald Trump for openly branding Pakistan as a terrorist state and creating existential trouble for terrorist groups like the Hizbul Mujahideen, Haqqani Network, the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Tayyaba etc.

The Modi Government has successfully catalysed people like Larry Pressler and networks like pro-India lobbies to put a fullstop to the troubles coming across the borders.

For many years, India has been talking about self-sufficiency in defence productions. But Modi Government is making sure that the talk is turned into action. Dreams floated in the air for ages are now turning into reality.

Defence manufacturing is taking the right shape and India may achieve export status in the next 10 years. This was possible through right persuasion and collaboration of foreign companies to start manufacturing defence hubs in India.

The recent Defence Expo 2018 held at Thiruvidanthai near Chennai saw a record number of foreign companies showing interests in starting defence manufacturing in India. By 2025, India is expected to produce military goods and services worth Rs 1.7 lakh crore.

World renowed defence equipment manufacturing companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing of the United States, Saab (Sweden), Airbus, Dassault Aviation (France), Rosoboronexport, United Shipbuilding Corporation (Russia), BAE Systems (United Kingdom), Sibat (Israel), Wartsila (Finland) and Rohde and Schwarz (Germany) are among the 154 foreign participating companies.

With Japan, India has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to send three lakh youths to get on-job training in the next three years. This is a major breakthrough to providing employment opportunities for job starved Indian population. The excess capital and human resources of Japan and India will lead to the prosperity of both nations.

In all ways, Narendra Modi’s charisma is working to the advantage of India. He has brought in huge foreign capital. It has doubled to over $60 billion in the last four years.

The Prime Minister has increased the clout of India widely around the world. From the President of United States to the Queen of England to the Prime Minister of tiny island Fiji, every head of the State around the world salutes India under the leadership of  Narendra Modi.

Now, the entire nation must rally behind the Government to ensure prosperity, peace and progress for all, leaving the petty politics behind. No internal problem should block our external progress.

(The author is Dean at Nehru Memorial College, Trichy)

Writer: A Prabaharan

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Professor Dinesh Singh highlighted the ‘philosophy of ‘Mimansa’ which means that information without action is worthless and thus we have to improve the quality of education through different initiatives.

Professor Dinesh Singh, former Vice-Chancellor, Delhi University stressed on making India a knowledge economy, changing people’s ideology and developing alertness among citizens for the overall development of the nation.

Prof CB Sharma, the chief trustee of the Shanti Upendra Foundation for Development Initiatives (SUFDI), a trust created in 2010 for extending education to those who have been deprived of it. The attempt was also to improve the quality of education through different initiatives. The aim of the trust is to establish academic institutions, conduct research and also undertake extension activities. The trust is attempting to emerge as a think tank in the area of education besides advising governments on policy issues. The trust also awards Sushamajay Scholarship to girls who have lost their parents and are likely to discontinue their studies. Every year two to three girls from the Vidya Mandir Vidyalaya, Belwari (Meghalaya) are awarded scholarship which also includes hostel and other charges for continuing their studies. For this, an amount of Rs 1 lakh every year is donated by Aparna Sharma, daughter of Late Ajay Kumar and Sushma Sharma of Manjhaul, Dist Begusarai (Bihar) and grand-daughter of Upendra and Shanti Sharma.

The trust organises a memorial lecture every year in the memory of Shanti Sharma, wife of late Upendra Sharma, the founder of the trust. Various eminent educationist have delivered lectures on this occasion viz. Prof Naresh Dadhich, Vice Chancellor, Kota Open University; PA Sangma, Former Speaker, Lok Sabha; Prof Sanjeev Sharma, professor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut; Dr Krishna Gopal, joint general secretary, Rashtriya Sevak Sangh.  This year, the 5th Shanti Sharma memorial lecture has been delivered by Professor Dinesh Singh, former Vice-Chancellor, Delhi University.

Professor Singh stated that the memorial lecture is organised in the memory of ‘a mother’ and India is mother to all of us so the lecture is dedicated to Shanti Sharma and “Bharat Maa”. He spoke on the topic India as a knowledge economy: need of the hour and mentioned that through this lecture perhaps there would be some change in our thinking and understanding.

He stressed on making India a knowledge economy which would result in the development of the country. The ideology of people needs to be changed for India to become a developed country. He emphasised that the India needs to be more alert and aware to get rid of lacunae in the system. He emphasised on philosophy of Mimansa which means that knowledge without action is meaningless and thus we have to evaluate ourselves. He reiterated that the knowledge system should be holistic and trans disciplinary and based on a hands-on application theory connected to the needs and challenges of India. There is a need to improve our system, especially the one related to education, for the benefit of our economy. Indians have to recognise the power given to us by the Supreme Being which can do wonders for the nation, if done with good intention. Indians have an ample sources of knowledge rooted in ancient India. Whether it is navigation, astronomy or astrology or science we can draw upon those to develop further. The proof of it lies in the fact that the Indian society and civilisation was regarded as the best during ancient times too. So much so, foreigners used to visit the Indian subcontinent to study in reputed Indian universities.

Writer: Dinesh Singh

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Nepal Prime Minister KP Oli won the Anti-India Campaign election which become equivalent to ultra-nationalism. This signals a significant calibration of bilateral ties. His term initiates India-china competition in the Himalayan State.

Prime Minister KP Oli arrived half an hour late for his last function organised by the BJP’s India Foundation, the party’ informal diplomatic outreach. A restless audience included Government Ministers, the thinking community, diplomats and the media. The contents of Oli’s longish speech, though quite spectacular, were lost in the routine delivery. There was no standing ovation.

Then closing his file and speech, Oli looked up, suddenly alight and energetic. Placing both his arms on the lectern and surveying the audience, he said: “There are rumours and rumours that my Government is a threat to democracy” and he briefly countered it. His critique apparently pointed to an Indian expert, who according to a Nepali journalist present, had written/spoken on television in Nepal that the Left alliance posed a threat to democracy. The second rumour was regarding Oli’s pro-China disposition. He said. “There will be no tilt towards China.” It was jolly good way to wake up the audience and end his visit to New Delhi.

His read out speech contained one more gem. It was a veiled reference to the blockade — which is part of the great misunderstanding of 2015-16 — he warned that blocking movement of goods, services and people should have no place in today’s interconnected world and the interconnected neighbourhood. As someone who followed his public utterances, Oli has been messaging to India not to take Nepal for granted and treat it as an equal with respect and dignity and as an independent and sovereign country without messing in its internal affairs. That, according to him, will reduce the current trust deficit.

The courting of Oli by India who won a thumping mandate, is the clearest indication of an intended reset in relations. Oli had indicated that he will not discuss any ‘internal matters’ with India. That is why there was no talk on China, Constitutional issues and OBOR which Oli said is in Nepal’s national interest. The Indian stand is quite the opposite. The one-on-one talks between the two Prime Ministers did cover assurances by both sides to uphold each other’s legitimate national and security interests.

The question no one asked Oli and in Beijing Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying is why did China not invite Oli to preempt the India visit. After all, Beijing’s role in Nepal is anything but the stated policy of non-interference in internal affairs. China’s influence is ubiquitous: Its economic investment substantive and role in domestic politics widespread and weighty. Optically, it would have been a major political victory for China had Oli been invited first to Beijing than new Delhi.

In 2008, Maoist pro-China Prime Minister, Prachanda made his first foreign visit to Beijing to attend the closing ceremony of the Olympics much to India’s dismay and breaking the India First tradition. On his return, Prachanda announced that his first ‘political’ visit would be to India and so it was. Prachanda’s time was consumed by  strategies for occupancy of Baluwatar (Prime Minister’s residence) and watching the shuffling of Marxist-Leninists and Maoist contenders for the job but Prachanda did not become Prime Minister again till his gentleman’s power-sharing agreement with Deuba in 2016. He deserted Deuba mid stream by joining the Left Alliance.

Inside the unified Marxist Leninist core group, a debate has started on the proposed merger with Maoists and the nomenclature of the party. Many young leaders are questioning the contemporary relevance of the dear departed Marx and Lenin and are in favour of renaming the party giving it a socialist, democratic and inclusive hue. But they fear the Maoists would block this. Such visionary ideas are unlikely to materialize anytime soon.

Oli spoke about the 80 per cent vote his Government secured in the Parliament and that soon he would have an unprecedented three fourths majority with both the Terai-based Federal Socialist Forum and the Rashtriya Janata Party joining the Government.

Besides numerical strength, the Government will then truly acquire a whole-of-Nepal complexion. It would also provide cushion in any future political realignments with Maoists acting as the swing party. The merger of the two Left parties is slated for April 22 but sharing the spoils of office with Prachanda in the new Communist Party of Nepal will not be easy. The Maoist argument is that if 60:40 was acceptable for seat sharing during elections, a 50:50 division ought to be reasonable in the share of leadership in the party central organization and its tiers down to the local level. It seems that eventually Oli may concede the 60:40 or 55:45 formula. On the larger question of a future Prachanda premiership there is little stated clarity, equally little doubt, that it is inevitable.

India has chosen to place most of its eggs in the Oli basket with few alternate options. This was evident from doubling economic assistance for Nepal by 73 per cent to nearly Rs 650 crore, second only to Bhutan. Oli’s aim is to use the political stability for making Nepal prosperous and happy and utilising both its powerful neighbours in focusing on development. Equidistant is the sine-qua non of his foreign policy.

Oli has sought Indian investment in hydropower, farming, infrastructure and tourism. India is already building 50,000 homes following the 2015 earthquake. Apparently, Modi bluntly told Oli that if China will build most of its hydropower projects, India will not buy the surplus power. The $2.5 billion Budhi Gandaki hydel project has become the bone of contention between India and China though Oli has promised  it to Beijing. Most high-value infrastructure projects have been bagged by China.

While the commissioning of the long-delayed Arun III hydropower project was postponed during the visit due to ecological difficulties on the Nepal side, new oil pipelines, railway lines including one to Kathmandu, inland waterways, accessing the sea, have been pledged by India.

Many projects, for which commitments were made years ago, never took off, Nepalese keep reminding India. Oli is supposed to have told Modi about the decades-old Pancheshwar and Mahakali projects and said that Delhi was required to build a 1.5 km road from Banbasa to Mahendranagar. Nepal has waited 22 years and added: “India is known to build 30 km of roads every day’’. India must improve quality and timely delivery of projects because  comparison is made with China.

Ironically Oli won the elections on an anti-India cry which became synonymous with ultra-nationalism. His term marks the start of the  India-China competition with a Nepali umpire.

(The writer is a retired Major General of the Indian Army and founder member of the Defence Planning Staff, currently the revamped Integrated Defence Staff)

Writer: Ashok K Mehta

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Congress accused the Modi Government of “destroying” the economy and said growth can be achieved only if the country is rescued from “incompetent economic managers”. The party also adopted a resolution on the economy at its Plenary session with former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh seeking to know the fate of the promised two crore jobs. Former Finance Minister P Chidambaram accused the Modi Government of squandering a golden opportunity to catapult India’s growth after economic gains during the previous UPA Government. Singh rued that at a time the world economy had grown from 2.8 per cent to 3.8 per cent from 2014 to 2018, the Indian economy had “decoupled itself ” from the world economy. He claimed India grew by 7.8 per cent under the UPA regime led by him. He lamented that only about 1.6 per cent of the country’s GDP was spent on defence expenditure, which, he said, could not meet the challenges that the security apparatus posed. He also alleged that there were many issues on the foreign policy front that had been poorly handled by the Modi Government. “The BJP Government has messed up the economy. When Modi ji was campaigning he made lots of tall promises. Those promises have not been fulfilled,” he said. Singh said the BJP claimed in 2014 that if it came to power it would provide 2 crore jobs. “But we have not seen even two lakh jobs,” he said. The “ill-thought and illconceived” demonetisation and “hastily put forward” legislation for GST had destroyed many jobs and created problems for the small and medium industry and the informal sector, both in terms of production and providing jobs, he said.

When the former prime minister spoke on foreign policy and defence, he was accorded a thunderous applause and a standing ovation by party leaders. Singh accused the BJP-led Government of having “mismanaged” the dispute in Jammu and Kashmir and said the Government’s talk of fighting two and a half wars was “yet another hollow promise”. On his part, Chidambaram said the crisis which the country faces can worsen in the last year of the Modi Government as the budget has provided no answers. “This budget is the handiwork of a government which is completely helpless, clueless and directionless. I am afraid, 12 months from today, whoever comes into the Government, will face a major crisis,” he said. The resolution moved by Chidambaram said that the tenure of the Narendra Modiled Government was replete with Governance and management misadventures and mistakes. “The most colossal failure has been its mismanagement of the economy,” said the resolution moved by Chidambaram. “The one party which can bring this country out of crisis is the Congress. Why do I say that? I say that not out of arrogance, not out of conceit, I say this because we have done it before and we can do it again beginning next year,” the former Union Minister said. “The Congress reiterates that the abysmal economic management of the Modi Government has resulted in lack of jobs for millions of India’s youth, stagnant real incomes for hundreds of millions of farmers, collapse of the manufacturing sector, destruction of micro, small and medium businesses, paralysis of India’s banking sector,” the resolution mentioned. “The economy is in the hands of ignorant and incompetent policy makers who have derailed economic growth through reckless and bizarre policies such as demonetisation and a hasty imposition of a flawed Goods and Services Tax regime,” it said. “They said we will abolish black money, we will put an end to corruption. We will stop fake currency. Have they put an end to black money? Every rally, every public meeting of the prime minister is financed by any money other than black money. Have they put an end to corruption, fake currency?” Chidambaram asked.

By Opinion Express News Services

Author Rajyogi Brahmakumar Nikunj Ji says that the three significant truths to give equality to all people in Indian caste system, irrespective of their caste, color and religion are that the human must have integrity and reason, characteristic value and dignity and they should act towards one another in a spirit of equality and brotherhood. This means that a person must have humanity to bring equality to the entire system as a whole.

The Indian caste system is historically one of the main dimensions where people are socially differentiated through class, religion, region, tribe, gender and language. Although this or other forms of differentiation exist in all human societies, it becomes a problem when one or more of these dimensions overlap each other and become the sole basis of systematic ranking and unequal access to valued resources like wealth, income, power and prestige. The phrase “without any discrimination, based on race, colour, caste, creed, sex and religious belief” is now commonly used when such part of any Act, Article or rule that puts emphasis on justice and equality is to be suitably worded. Thus, the phrase has been used in a number of Articles and clauses or sub-clauses in the Indian Constitution and also in other statutory laws. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, also has used this phrase with addition of words like property, birth, national origin and distinction of any kind.

However, Article 2 of the Declaration, which has this phrase, does not include the word “caste” because caste system, as it is prevalent in India, is not prevalent in most other countries. But the aforesaid article uses the word “social origin” and also the word “birth” and these words should jointly imply the distinction made on the ground of caste that is nowadays based on birth and social origin.

There is no doubt that the use of this or similarly-worded phrases is the right thing done to meet the requirements of law and legislation that make it mandatory for and obligatory on the citizens of a country or the world not to discriminate on the basis of anyone of these. The simple reason for this is that the discrimination results in inequality, based on extraneous factors, and also in injustice and inhuman treatment of some people and deprivation of certain classes. But an important thing that seems to have been missed all along in this connection is that legal luminaries, social scientists and public have, perhaps, never applied any serious thought as to why distinctions based on race, colour, nationality, language, gender, etc are sought to be set aside when these distinctions really exist and qualify or disqualify a person or certain worldly roles.

Also, why is discrimination, based on any one of these, considered as an obstacle to justice or roadblock to equality? Never have the legal experts who prepare the draft of a legislation, or the legislators who vote for or against a Bill introduced in the legislature, thought as to what, after all, is the real identity and nature of a person, divested of these distinctions of race, colour, nationality, sex and even of belief or creed.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that “all human beings are endowed with reason and conscience” and it asks all “to act towards one another in the spirit of brotherhood.” This forms the very basis of the Declaration and has been numbered as Article 1. The Preamble to the Declaration says that “the people of the United Nations have, in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in the dignity and the worth of the human person.” These three important truths, namely  that the human has reason and conscience, that it has inherent worth and dignity and that the human beings should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood, together mean that the human person is a soul and a child of Supreme, for then only can human beings act towards one another as “brothers” and then only do they have inherent worth and dignity.

All human beings cannot be termed as “brothers” on the basis of their physical relationships nor is their worth and dignity based on any physical consideration because the moral dimension is related to the non-physical soul. The soul has inherent dignity not because of any gross possessions but because it is a child of the Supreme Almighty who is the most exalted and illumined One. The soul has worth also because it is the inheritor of HIS treasures. So, in a way, the Human Rights Declaration and all the laws that declare justice an obligatory act of all human beings have a spiritual basis.

Furthermore, the law, whether it is international or national, asks us to discard all kinds of distinctions, based on race, colour, nationality, sex, social origin, property, language, birth and so on because these are based on the body of a person and not on the person. This implicitly and explicitly means that the real human person is a soul in a human body. It makes distinction between body and soul and wants us to keep in mind the soul and forget his or her physical particulars while treating another person. Now this aspect of the law has been forgotten in course of time and it has become a mere ritual or a formality to say that there should not be any discrimination, based on body. The present-day deterioration in moral values is because of this.

It should not be difficult to understand that there are certain laws that govern our mutual relationships or human behaviour in general. These are known as moral laws or ethical principles. Based on these, are certain norms, codes of conduct or rules and regulations to be followed in life in an organised society. If we follow these laws, the quality and quantity of happiness in our life is enhanced and if we violate these, then we have to face so many problems and disturbances. The observance of these moral norms is of great value if we wish to be happy and build a society free from friction.

It is not that science and technology or management skills have caused our present sufferings. On the other hand, it is fall in the standards of morality that has prevented even technology from adding value to our lives. Moreover, it is not that people do not know that moral values are necessary to build a happy and peaceful society. People wish to have moral qualities in their life but they do not have that spiritual knowledge that should enable them to follow successfully these values in their life. Thus the need of the hour is to create a mass awareness among people for values like tolerance, humility and mutual respect where there is peace, happiness and harmony.

Writer: Rajyogi Brahmakumar Nikunj

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The blame for wrecking parliamentary proceedings goes to both, the Government and the Opposition. This wrecking may just lead to a loss in confidence of public representatives by the people.

No one should be surprised at the headlines in newspapers and prime-time television channels that the current Winter Session of Parliament is heading towards a washout. This is the 12th straight session wasted so far.  In fact, we have been seeing almost the same headlines at the close of every Parliament session in the past two decades. People are becoming disenchanted with the MPs for not doing their duties.

What are the functions and duties of an elected Member of Parliament? There are four important functions: Budget scrutiny, protecting the interests of the constituents, function as a watchdog over the Government and above all, making laws.

Are they performing their duties for which they have been elected? This belligerence is not pertaining to the Congress-led Opposition now as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) too was doing the same thing when it was in the Opposition.

While the Government blames the Opposition, the latter blames the BJP for not reaching out to them. Congress president Rahul Gandhi in a rally in Karnataka on March 25 said, “In Parliament, a no-confidence motion against the Modi Government has been moved. For the past 10 days it has been stalled because the Government is afraid”.

Hence, the blame-game continues. While political parties used to keep up pretensions that they were willing to work, it was clear from day one that neither the Government nor the Opposition had any intention of allowing the Parliament to function during this session.

Significantly, this is the first time the Narendra Modi Government is facing a no-confidence motion brought separately by the Congress, the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS). The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) is threatening to bring another.

Both the presiding officers had been pleading with the members to allow the House to function but to no avail. The Chairman of Rajya Sabha M Venkaiah Naidu lamented, “ I am filled with sadness at the disorder, indiscipline and inappropriate conduct in the House”.

Naidu made several appeals to the members, asking them not to further erode the “quality of polity”. He finally succeeded in making the Rajya Sabha bid farewell to 60 retiring members last week. Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan had no such success.

The Upper House was only able to pass the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Bill 2017, while the Lok Sabha cleared the Finance Bill 2018 without any discussion, including a Rs 89 crore spending plan for the next fiscal year in less than half an hour.

The House passed the 21 amendments for taxation proposals in the Bill by a voice vote and also the appropriation Bill containing the budgetary plans for 99 Government departments and Ministries.The Opposition blocked the Government in both Houses on various issues. Mainly, the four regional parties from the south — AIADMK, TRS, YSR Congress and TDS — supported by the other opposition parties stalled the business.

Every day as soon as the House began its proceedings, 37 AIADMK members trooped into the well of the House, demanding setting up of the Cauvery Water Management Board as ordered by the Supreme Court. The TRS wanted its 12 per cent reservation for Muslims in the State to be notified under Ninth Schedule.

TDS, an ally of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), after quitting the alliance last month, became more belligerent, demanding special status for Andhra Pradesh as promised at the time of the bifurcation of the State in 2014. Not to be outdone, the YSR Congress too is demanding the same and both parties have separately given a no-confidence motion against the Modi Government.

Politically, it is not unexpected in view of the upcoming Assembly election to Karnataka where both the Congress and the BJP are engaged in direct fight.

As for the AIADMK, it is competitive local politics which is playing out in Parliament. Same is the case with TDP and YSRC. The TRS is indeed playing to the tune of its home constituency. Losing one more Session does not auger well for the Government as well as the Opposition. There are many issues  which are important, like the agrarian crisis, the Nirav Modi-PNB scam, Iraq issue, Cambridge Analytica data sale, Ramnavami clashes in West Bengal and Bihar and so on.

Certainly, it is for the Government to ensure that business is transacted in both Houses and it must reach out to the Opposition. But the Opposition too has a responsibilities to debate, discuss and expose the Government.

Right now, the relationship between the Government and the Opposition has completely broken down. The Government should also note the growing north-south divide, with the southern States complaining of a stepmotherly treatment.

If this continues, the people of the country may no longer have trust in politicians, who they believe, are taking them for a ride.  They are already disenchanted with the political class with the increasing number of NOTA votes in the ballot paper indicating their anger. Parliament is a temple of democracy and if this breaks down, the democracy will also be shattered.

(The writer is a senior political commentator and syndicated columnist)

Writer: Kalyani Shankar

Courtesy: The Pioneer