The Election Commission of India is pushing the Government over the next batch of electoral reforms
The Election Commission, trolled by the non-BJP parties during the last round of Assembly elections for reasons ranging from impartiality towards the Opposition and alleged kowtowing before the BJP Government, took the lead this time in inquiring with the Government about the next tranche of electoral reforms. The Commission wrote to the Union Law Ministry to get back on the nearly 40 reform proposals pending with it. The Commission identified five main reforms it urgently wants implemented: Allowing voters turning 18 to register themselves with the Commission; punishment for candidates furnishing false information in their affidavits; paid news to be made an electoral offence; ban on advertising in print media during the silence period; linking Aadhaar number to electoral rolls to avoid duplication of voter ID cards. Reforms are currently of three levels in terms of ease of implementation. The Commission is already implementing the elementary level, comprising digitising the election process and enabling remote voting for NRIs and migrant workers. The five reforms listed above come in the intermediate level because they first need amendments to laws and they are not really politically controversial. Some reforms implemented over a decade ago made the electoral process a bit more credible, including candidates’ affidavits on criminal antecedents and assets, criminalisation of politics, limitations on exit and opinion polls, prohibition on surrogate advertisements, compulsory maintenance of poll accounts by parties. However, feet are being dragged on a crucial reform: Restricting the number of seats a candidate can contest from.
It is the final level of reforms that are contentious and which form the real core of electoral reforms India urgently needs. One is overall transparency of the Commission’s actions. The run-up to every Assembly election sees various interpretations of Commission’s actions, particularly the Opposition’s charge of alleged leniency shown to ruling party bigwigs. The second issue is electoral bonds. At present any Indian citizen can buy electoral bonds and donate it to a political party of choice, but anonymously. While anonymity is intended to prevent political victimisation of the donor, the Commission in 2017 did not favour the donor’s identity being kept secret as that may allow shell companies and foreign entities to fund and influence Indian elections. Hate speech and communal polarisation have of late become the biggest negative factors in Indian elections, their impact worse than caste considerations. The Commission has been found wanting in issuing exemplary punishment to the wrongdoers. Another issue is the demand for taking the collegium route, like the judiciary, for appointment of commissioners and elevating the senior-most as the chief. Last but not the least is Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “one nation one election” proposal as well as a single voters’ list for the Lok Sabha, Assembly and panchayat elections to cut down costs. Clearly, the latter reforms will hold a candle to the Commission’s sincerity of purpose subject, of course, to the Union Government being eager to clear the proposals.
( Courtesy Pioneer )
Irrespective of whether Netanyahu stays or goes, it can’t be denied that his Likud party has changed the contours of Israeli politics forever
With four inconclusive elections to the Knesset in the last two years, Israel’s politics is badly fragmented. While Likud is still the leading party in the 24th Knesset, its 30-seat performance is the poorest in recent times. Many attribute it to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s brashness, arrogance and corrupt policies. He might have to stand trial for four distinct charges of corruption and sleaze against him. Politics in Israel has always been fissiparous. Parliamentary groupings (alliances) are common for cobbling up a majority in the 120-member legislature. On most occasions, the Knesset failed to complete its four-year term and a new Government was sworn in sooner than the Knesset dissolved. Israel witnessed 34 Governments during the previous 23 Knessets.
Whether Israelis have practised democracy to the hilt, or to a fault, is a matter of opinion. They organised the first general elections to the Knesset on January 25, 1949 — less than a year after declaring independence on May 14, 1948. Israel’s declaration of independence was accompanied by its battle for survival against the Arab Army’s attack aimed at annihilating the new State. Despite many Arabs of Palestine fleeing, a portion stayed back. Almost 30,000 Arabs voted in the first general elections (1949) and nearly 70,000 in the second (1951). Israel, based on universal adult suffrage, was the first country in the world to enfranchise Arab women.
Democracy in Israel might be seen as an American influence, its stalwart ally. However, it is largely forgotten that a Communist USSR was the first country to recognise an independent Israel de jure and supply it with arms and ammunition (through Czechoslovakia), which helped Israel survive the Arab attack. Previously, on May 14, 1947, (exactly a year before Israel’s declaration of independence) it was the USSR’s permanent representative at the UN Andrei Gromyko who had proposed in the UN the plan to partition the mandated territory of Palestine between the Arabs and Jews; thus leading to creation of sovereign Israel. It is another thing that the USSR, which turned anti-Israel and pro-Arab by 1950, tried to erase these aspects from the public discourse.
The birth and survival of Israel is popularly presented through the prism of Jewish-Arab discord. It is generally overlooked that pro-Zionist Jews were themselves affected by tumultuous ideological disputes. One of the best-kept secrets is how this dispute led an independent Israel to practise apartheid against a section of its own Jewish citizens for the first 30 years. The struggle has its origins in the ideological conflict between David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973), a committed Socialist, and Z’eev Jabotinsky (1860-1940), who espoused Revisionist Zionism and created Jewish self-defence units for the first time in two millennia. Both were from the former Russian Empire. This split the Jewish underground active defence into mainstream Haganah and fringe Irgun and Lehi. The more militant Irgun and Lehi, following Jabotinsky’s footsteps, believed in fighting the British as well as Arabs, while fighting the former was not on the agenda of Haganah.
In this power struggle, Ben-Gurion apparently emerged victorious. Not only he became the first Prime Minister of Israel, but his Mapai (Labour) Party ruled Israel for a quarter century, ending with his protégé Golda Meir’s exit in June 1974. Despite its splintered politics, the Social-Democratic nature of Israel made Mapai an extremely powerful agency to control the economy, education, labour market, media and Army.
Ben-Gurion acted vindictively against the Jewish families which had served in Irgun and Lehi. Though their citizenship could not be cancelled as per Israel’s Law of Return (1950), they were practically ostracised. While Irgun and Lehi were demonised as terrorist organisations in history books, their former fighters like Yitzhak Shamir (who later became the PM) could not get even a simple clerk’s job and Israel Eldad was removed from professorship after Ben-Gurion’s personal intervention. The graves of former fighters were not marked with Israel Defence Force symbols.
These families, restricted to a few colonies in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, stayed close to each other sharing pride and pain. Their only notable representative in Knesset was Menachim Begin, a disciple of Jabotinsky. They named their children, born mostly in 1940s, after fallen fighters and heroes and brought them in the family tradition of pride, pathos and patriotism. It was from these families that emerged a whole generation of politicians including Ehud Olmert, Yair Shamir, Uzi Landau, Ruby Rivlin and, later, Tzipi Livni and Benjamin Netanyahu who would transform the scenario in Israel.
Shortly after Israel’s pyrrhic victory in Yom Kippur War, 1973, an 87-year old David Ben-Gurion died, Golda Meir resigned and Menachim Begin, along with Major General Ariel Sharon (Retd), formed the Likud (Consolidation) party, with Revisionist Zionism as its creed. This party has produced, apart from Begin, other Prime Ministers like Yitzhak Shamir, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu. In one generation, led by Menarche Begin, children (often called Princes) from ostracised fighters’ families had turned the politics of Israel around.
(The writer is an author and independent researcher based in New Delhi. The views expressed are personal.)
( Courtsey Pioneer )
CDM is an effective tool to facilitate low-carbon transition and helps in technology transfer
The 2021 UN Climate Change Conference, better known as COP 26, will be hosted by UK in Glasgow in November. On-going discussions emphasize on re-strategizing climate policies in this new normal scenario.While a trade-off of pertinent issues is imperative, establishing an international carbon market is exigent, considering its economic significance to drive sustainable growth. Under Article 6 of Paris Agreement, countries agreed to set up an international carbon market to help countries decarbonize their economies at lower costs. But COP 25, held in 2019, failed to address this owing to disagreements concerning non-inclusion of unsold credits under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
The CDM is a flexible mechanism in the Kyoto Protocol (KP) that allows a developed country with an emission-reduction commitment to implement projects in developing countries where the cost of mitigation is lower. However, under the Paris Agreement implementation rules are yet to be framed. CDM has been the biggest issuer of carbon credits measured in certified emission reductions (CER), with almost 50 per cent issuances from projects in renewable energy, industrial gases and fugitive emissions. Several developing economies have already accumulated huge credits. However, post 2012 the number of registered projects under CDM have rapidly dwindled. A credit that used to be traded at $25 per CER now trades at 25 cents, hardly covering the transaction cost. The decline in CER prices is attributed to myriad economic factors, the prominent ones being policy uncertainty regarding the international carbon market, lack of robustness of monitoring and verification mechanisms, lack of environmental integrity, and economic slowdown. Roughly, around 4 billion credits remain unsold globally, of which India holds 750 million worth of CERs.
Contrarily, with dwindling prices of CERs, voluntary markets have gained prominence post 2015. Voluntary markets are known to offer some advantages over the CDM owing to lower transaction costs, shorter time frame for project approvals, and increased emphasis on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The prominent crediting mechanisms under this include Verified Carbon Standard, Gold Standard, Climate Action Reserve, and American Carbon Registry. India has registered 526 projects (earning 89 million credits) through the voluntary market. Interestingly, VCS has issued more credits globally in 2019 than the CDM. However, a large volume of these Verified Emission Reductions (VERs) remain unsold. It is unclear whether unsold CERs will be included in case CDM is renewed and if included will it dilute the value of new CERs to be issued under new regime. In case a new CDM-like mechanism comes up, it needs to address the fundamental flaws of the older system taking into account first, strict selection of projects based on 'additionality' requirement to account for real emission reduction; second, inclusion of the aviation sector; third, take measures to register projects especially from Small Island Developing States (SIDS), Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and African countries; fourth, devise accounting standards for verification and monitoring of CERs; fifth, ensure avoidance of double counting; and sixth, consider transitional credits up to 2023 till the global stocktaking takes place under Article 14 of the Paris Agreement. The demand for credits is likely to rise given the efforts undertaken to decarbonise economies.
(The author is a Fellow at TERI working on various sustainability issues. The views expressed are personal.)
SEBI wants to shift focus from promoters to controlling shareholders or the so-called ‘person in control’ (PIC), but is the new breed willing to take charge?
Paving the way for a major change in the way the promoters and over 4,700 listed corporates function in the country, in a consultation paper, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has proposed doing away with the concept of promoters and moving to 'person in control' (a three-year transition is recommended for the switch over). It has also suggested doing away with the current definition of promoter group with a view to rationalize the disclosure burden. The other proposals include (i) reducing the minimum lock-in period(the time period an investor can hold on to the shares) post an initial public offer (IPO) for promoters' share of minimum 20 per centfrom existing three years to one year (locked-in for holding in excess of 20 per cent is proposed to be reduced fromexisting one yearto six months);(ii) reducing lock-in for pre-IPO shareholders (those shareholders who invest in the company even before it goes for public issue) from existing one year to six months.
The concept of promoter is legacy from the past when a corporate entity or a group of entities (say, an industrial house viz. Tata, Birla and so on) would set up a business enterprise; for instance, a power or steel or fertilizer plant, committing some capital of its own and funding the balance of the project cost by borrowings from banks and financial institutions besides raising funds from the capital market. This entity would remain associated with the enterprise - almost all through the life cycle of the project - having an intrinsic interest in ensuring its sustained profitability and growth and steadfastly work for realizing this goal thereby acquiring the status of what one may describe as "once a promoter, always a promoter".
As per Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements (ICDR)Regulations (2018), the SEBI definespromoter"as a person who has been named as such in the offer document as promoters or in the annual return of the issuer or a person who has control over the issuer (directly or indirectly) or in whose advice, directions or instructions the board of directors (BoD) of the issuer is accustomed to act". A person or group of persons should have a minimum of 20 per cent equity share capital to be classified as 'promoter group'.
During the last over a decade or so, investor landscape in India has undergone a drastic change whereby a new breed of shareholders such as private equity funds (PEF), alternate investment funds (AIFs), mutual funds etc have emerged as dominant investors even as the shareholding of the promoter has been reduced to minority(aggregate promoters' holdings in top 500 listed firms by market value, is on a downward trajectorysince2009 when it peaked at 58 per cent).
In new-age and tech companies, thenew breed of shareholdersinvest in firms (albeit unlisted) through what is termed as 'control deals' even before these go for an IPO and continue to hold shares post-listing, many times being the largest public shareholders, having special rights, such as the right to nominate directors.
Even though the de facto 'ownership' and 'controlling rights' of a company have shifted to PEF/AIFs et al, de jure, the entity that launched the business enterprise continues to hold sway (despite its shareholding having been reduced to minority) as the extant law classifies it as a promoter.The market regulatorwants to correct this anomaly by shifting focus from promoters to controlling shareholders or the so called 'person in control' (PIC). But, it also needs to ask whether the new breed is really willing to take charge?
These institutions represent a conglomeration of tens of thousands of investors (in case of mutual funds, these run into lakhs). They collect money from individual investors - many of them high net-worth individuals - and invest in companies with the sole objective of generating good returns. In a fundamental sense, they are financial investors, would remain invested in a firm as long as the objective is served otherwise, leave; whereas the role of a PIC requires that they remain invested over the long-term.
Does SEBI really intend them to be in this role (read: PIC)? From its proposals on minimum lock-in, it does not appear to be so. Post an IPO, it permits promoter to shed its share of minimum 20 per centwithin one yearagainst the existing three years(holding in excess of 20 per centcan be shedin 6 months down from one year). It is even contemplating to completely dispense with the requirement of minimum shareholding for a person to qualify as promoter. If, an entity say, PEF, can sell its shareholding acquired before IPO (albeit large enough to give it the status of a promoter) within one year of the public issue or the requirement of minimum shareholding itself is waived, how can it be expected to do justice to the role of a 'person in control'?
Ironically, the regulator does not even want the public to know the identity of investors behind the issuer. Under the liberalized disclosure requirements, the issuer need not give financials of group companies linked to the one being listed; it need not name financial investors as promoters in IPOs and it need not mention specific corporate bodies which are part of the promoter group. How can an entity whose source of funding is shrouded in secrecy instill confidence?
Most listed companies today are professionally managed and much of the activity is centered around the Board of Directors (it includes a number of independent directors) and the CEO assisted by various committees including audit committeeand remuneration committee etc for transparent functioning. Could the PIC role be assigned to the CEO/BoD? The answer to this is in the negative.
The CEO and other members of the Board are professionals. They are appointed and derive their authority from the shareholders - albeit by majority vote or any other mechanism agreed to by them. If the majority shareholders leave, then it is unlikely that the existing CEO/BoD will continue. Moreover, if the former exit within a short period(very likely under the new rules mooted by the regulator), then the case for CEO/BoD for acting as PIC is weakened further.
To conclude, when the person who started the company (read: promoter) is reduced to a minority and the new breed of shareholders who have majority stake are unwilling to slip into the former's shoes, it will tantamount to pushing the listed firm literally into the status of 'a ship without a commander'. This is totally unacceptable.
What then is the way forward?
SEBI needs to take a re-look at its proposals keeping two cardinal principles in mind (i) 'the voting/controlling power of an investor has to be proportional to his investment or the shares held by him'; (ii) stability of the management. In the current scenario, where largest/majority shareholding is vested in PEF/AIFs et al, they should be made to take on the role of PIC and stay invested in the company over a reasonably long period. The regulator must not reduce the lock-in period. Itshouldalso not do away with requirement of minimum shareholding for an entity to be remain in control of the firm and insist on full transparency on funding sources.
(The author is a policy analyst. The views expressed are personal.)
( Courtesy Pioneer )
Hurting the BJP outside West Bengal seems to be the TMC’s game plan
The Trinamool Congress harbours political ambitions outside West Bengal. Nothing new, but the fresh assertion by Mamata Banerjee’s nephew, the newly-appointed party general secretary Abhishek Banerjee, smacks of a spirit to take on the BJP rekindled by its resounding return to power in the State. For the record, the younger Banerjee says: “…If we decide to launch ourselves in other States, we will do so not to win few seats or to increase our vote share but to win power in that State by taking the BJP head on.” The Trinamool Congress appears to have a game plan to influence politics in areas where Bengalis reside in large numbers. One will have to watch how the Trinamool Congress plays the electoral game in next year’s Assembly polls in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Gujarat and Goa where the BJP is in power. It cannot make much of a difference in any of these States other than giving Mamata a much bigger national profile and keeping her in the news. That would suit her game plan to emerge as a possible face of the Opposition in the 2024 elections. If it sticks to this plan, it will be venturing out far from its moorings, where its local politics is tethered to linguistic and regional identities. The Trinamool Congress has a limited area to explore outside West Bengal, specifically the north-eastern States and possibly Jharkhand where there is a sizeable Bengali population.
The Trinamool Congress has a history of stepping into electoral waters in these particular States. It got the national party status in 2014 while, in 2016, it was recognised as a State party in Tripura, Arunachal and Manipur apart from, of course, West Bengal. Way back in 2001, the Trinamool Congress had won a seat in the Assam elections. In 2010, it engineered a Congress split in Tripura to directly fight the CPM. In 2012, it was the main Opposition in Manipur. It fielded candidates in Arunachal Pradesh. In these States, it was the BJP that triumphed, the Trinamool Congress becoming a victim of ayaram-gayaram politics. The party has consistently backed Bengali culture in these States. For instance, after the killing of five Bengalis in Assam in 2018, Abhishek, speaking in Kolkata, famously bound Bengal and the BJP to the Trinamool Congress’s external politics: “This is a fight to preserve the Bengali culture. This is a fight for the rights of Bengalis. This fight is against the BJP’s politics of oppression and forcible occupation.” Between 2022 and 2024, in the run-up to the general elections, several north-eastern States will also hold elections where the Trinamool Congress would want to project the image of pitting itself against the BJP on equal terms. The name of the game is: You become my rival in my State, I will become yours in others. If that provokes the “insiders” of these States to criticise the foray of “outsiders”, the Trinamool Congress would not be unnerved more than it already is by native criticism to perceived opposition by Bengali chauvinism.
( Courtesy Pioneer )
The nation is facing a chronic problem of splintered democracy. Can the new disparate coalition deliver a stable Government or will Likud spring back?
The four elections to the Knesset (Parliament) within two years— between April 9, 2019, and March 23, 2021 — notwithstanding, the political picture in Israel is still unpredictable. A delicate and disparate coalition of the Centrist, Conservative and Arab parties is poised to replace the Centre-Rightist/Zionist Likud-led Government that has been in power for 12 years now.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest serving Prime Minister, is not taking his imminent departure kindly. He has blamed Yair Lapid of being “unprincipled” and “unscrupulous” in joining forces with ideologically disparate elements. Despite an intensely secular outlook, journalist-cum-politician Yair Lapid, who heads the Centrist Yesh Atid (“There is Future”) Party, has roped in Naftali Bennett, a millionaire tech entrepreneur-turned-Conservative leader, who might soon be made Israel’s first kippa-wearing Prime Minister. To add to the numbers, and the drama, the ruling coalition will feature, again for the first time, an Arab party. Mansour Abbas, the leader of Israel’s United Arab list, is likely to join the salad coalition as a Minister.
Netanyahu is banking on people’s revulsion to prevent this coalition from assuming power. Simultaneously, he has alleged an “election fraud”. One hopes, by “election fraud” he means manipulated mandate, not actual forgery. One could hardly allege that elections are rigged, more than two months after the declaration of results. Israel has no permanent Election Commission, and few electoral reforms have taken place since independence.
Israel undoubtedly is an island of democracy, in the Middle Eastern wilderness of Sheikdom, demagogues, civil wars and Ayatollahs. Despite war clouds perpetually looming, democracy has not been eclipsed for a single day in this Jewish country since its independence on May 14, 1948. Israel actually tends to suffer from too much democracy. The political space is crowded by parties/parliamentary groups of all hues. Members are never elected to the 120-member Knesset territorially or individually but as part of rosters of specific lists submitted by different political parties/alliances. The elections are held on the basis of a proportional representation system whereby the entire Israel is deemed as a single constituency. The registered electors vote for political parties/alliance of parties rather than for candidates.
AB Magil, a Marxist journalist and himself an American Jew, who witnessed Israel’s War of Liberation (1948) could not cease to wonder at the political scenario in the newly independent State: “The visitor to Israel never fails to be astonished at the complexity of its political life. It is not easy to find one’s way amid the welter of parties, electoral blocs, political sects and schisms. In the first Israeli elections, voters numbering 450,000 were presented with no less than 21 tickets to choose from… The fragmentation of political life is largely a reflection of the fragmented people from whom the nation Israel has been assembled” (Israel in Crisis, P.111).
Magil’s book ‘Israel in Crisis’ (1950) appeared merely a year after the first general elections in the newly independent nation on January 25, 1949. In those elections, the Labour Party (Mapai) with 34.7 per cent votes resulting in 46 seats, and United Workers Party (Mapam) with 14.5 votes resulting in 19 seats, were the leading elements. For 15 years since March 1949, the Mapai (Labour Party) governed Israel with David Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharett and Levi Eshkol as successive Prime Ministers.
The Governments, however, proved less durable than Knesset terms. Thus, by the time of the sixth Knesset, the 12th Government was in office. Then in November 1965, Levi Eshkol formed a new alliance, Alignment, comprising Mapai and Ahdut HaAvoda. The most famous Prime Minister (1969-74) of Alignment was Golda Meir.
The control of Mapai has been near absolute over national institutions, economy, Army, media and education. Gil Samanov, in his recent book Netanyahu and Likud’s Leaders (2020), has called it “totalitarian” as in the Communist countries. The shock of the Yom Kippur War (1973), which Israel ultimately won but with considerable fatalities, had a major fallout on the national psyche. The time was ripe for Menachem Begin (1913-92), a die-hard anti-Mapai politician, to turn around the political scenario. Begin discussed his plans for a nationalist formation with Major General Ariel Sharon (Retd), leading to the foundation of Likud (Consolidation) in 1973. Likud’s rise spelt Mapai’s end. As the Prime Minister, Begin had to sign the Camp David Accord (1978), surrendering the Sinai Peninsula captured by Israel in 1967. On the positive side, it led to the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (March 26, 1979), the first recognition of Israel’s right to exist by an Arab country.
Will the latest coalition lead Israel into the future or will the Likud defy destiny again, like it did when one of its founders, Ariel Sharon, broke it to form a moderate Kadima party in 2005 that decided on Israeli withdrawal from Gaza with no substantial benefit?
(The writer is an author and independent researcher based in New Delhi. The views expressed are personal.)
Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has said that Pakistan intends to call a conference of foreign ministers of Islamic countries in Islamabad to discuss the so-called Kashmir issue.
This is a breach of the spirit and apparent willingness of peaceful relations between India and Pakistan that was initiated by the Pakistan army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa when on February 25 a cease fire on the Line of Control was agreed during the meeting of director generals of Military Operations of both countries.
With Shah's announcement it seems that the Imran Khan government of Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf and the military establishment are no more on the ‘same page', a claim made by Imran Khan during his address to the nation on July 27, a day after he had won the controversial election of 2018.
Ever since the abrogation of Article 370 and 35-A of the Indian constitution Imran Khan has been making suggesting that peace dialogue between India and Pakistan shall not resume unless the status of Jammu Kashmir is reversed.
Khan has been flying across the Middle East to garner support against India and force the Muslim states to issue condemnation of the Modi government's decision to free Jammu Kashmir from the shackles of an Article that was instrumental in blocking direct national or international investment in the Vale of Kashmir.
The Articles were also discriminatory against the women of the valley since it did not give automatic civil and property inheritance rights to them if the married someone from outside the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The abrogation of Articles 370 and 35-A also abolished the existence of a state in a state situation which had been a hurdle in India's attempts to contain jihadi terrorism. Imran Khan's attempts to acquire support against India back fired in the most humiliating way. On August 24, 2019, less than two weeks after the Articles 370 and 35-Awere, United Arab Emirates awarded ‘Order of Zayed', her highest civilian award, to Prime minister Narendra Modi.
Requests to the chairman of the OIC to hold an emergency session on Jammu Kashmir were turned down and Pakistan's threat to convene a conference of brotherly Islamic countries was taken as an attempt to split the OIC. Hence, Saudi Arabia cancelled the US $3 billion credit line offered to Imran Khan in 2018 and not only that, the Royal Kingdom demanded that Pakistan repay US $1 billion of oil credit money that Pakistan already owed her.
Pakistan had to beg China to lend her the money in order to repay Saudi Arabia. The list of further humiliations that Pakistan has faced since are far too many to be included in this short piece, but you get the idea.
Shah intends to call the aforesaid meeting of foreign ministers of the Islamic states in March 2022. However, it remains to be seen if this adventure succeeds in gaining the approval of two most important entities when it comes to taking decisions of such nature by Pakistan: Saudi Arabia and Pakistani military establishment; both of which do not seem to be on good terms with the pauper government of Imran Khan.
Pakistan has nothing to offer to the Middle East in return for such a favour especially when it involves the risk of losing great business relations with a booming $3 trillion Indian economy. Besides, India is the one of the largest exporter of Basmati rice and meat to the Middle East.
According to information available on the Indian Embassy website in Riyadh, during the Fiscal Year ‘2019-20, bilateral trade {between India and Saudi Arabia} was valued at $33.09 billion. During this period, India's imports from Saudi Arabia reached $26.84 billion'.
And according to information available on Trading Economics, a resource that provides economic information for 196 countries and more than 20 million economic indicators and much more, revealed that ‘Saudi Arabia's exports to Pakistan was US$ 745.52 million during 2019'.
I leave it to you to do your own research on search engines to examine the extent of monetary benefit the Middle East earns by trading with India. No sane mind would risk to lose the foreign exchange and hard cash that the Middle East earns by way of exports to India just for the sake of pleasing a conniving manoeuvre by the state of Pakistan that survives on borrowed money and perhaps borrowed time.
Hence, in my opinion, it could prove be yet another of Pakistan's desired conferences that might never take place.
(Dr Amjad Ayub Mirza is an author and human rights activist from Mirpur in PoJK. He currently lives in exile in the UK. The views expressed are personal)
( Courtesy IANS )
The Government must concentrate on gradual but serious systemic changes to ensure reforms
On May 26 the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi completed seven years in office. For the first time since 1984 a single political party won absolute majority in 2014. The BJP improved its tally in 2019 Lok Sabha elections. However, the Shiv Sena and Akali Dal are no longer in the NDA. The BJP celebrated the occasion as 'service day'. This is the longest but a tumultuous period of a stable government in power. What does this 'service day' means for the common man?
Modi government have some solid achievements during the first term which got him solid support in Uttar Pradesh and other North Indian states and West Bengal. The linking of Aadhar card to mobile and bank accounts is a key achievementAnother was to open 38.35 crore 'Jan Dhan' accounts. The digitization of government departments and banks helped in checking grassroots corruption as money of more than 300 schemes is transferred directly in the accounts of the beneficiaries — the government saved Rs 1.5 lakh crore which otherwise would have leaked out due to corruption.
Eradicating open defecation by sanctioning toilets which along with 'Swatch Bharat Scheme' is estimated to have prevented three lakh deaths from water- borne diseases and "Ujjawala Scheme" under which eight crore households were provided gas connections won the hearts of rural people, particularly women. Kitchenswere made smoke-free. Rural homes enjoyed the luxury of toilets. It drastically cut the political base of caste-based opposition parties in the Hindi heartland. The 'Ayushman Bharat' scheme is unique which covers 50 crore population under one of the largest government-sponsored health programmes in the world. Fifteen more AIIMS were created and 157 Medical Colleges opened, increasing medical seats by 35,000. The government also started National Digital Health Mission for telemedicine.
The government had promised housing to two crore slum dwellers and so far 48 lakh houses had been constructed and more than a crore are under construction. The Mudra schme was launched to promote the young entrepreneurs to start their own ventures and so far more than 28 crore loans worth 14.9 lakh crore rupees were sanctioned creating 1.12 crore jobs.
The Goods and Services tax (GST) is the biggest tax reforms since independence and is now paying dividend. Yet another epoch-making reform was declaring triple talaq illegal -- opposed by the opposition, it was accepted by Muslim women. The one rank one pension in 2015, Jal Jeevan Mission in 2019 are two more successful schemes.
However, unemployment is still around 11 per cent thanks to Covid-19 pandemic. The doubling of farmers' income is still nowhere near the target and the situation was compounded by the stalemate caused by the farmers' agitation. The government first must concentrate on gradual but serious systemic changes to ensure holistic long-lasting reforms.The second is to make drastic changes in the health sector and move to universal health care like the one in Britain. A new comprehensive Act for the health sector needs to be enacted so that health infrastructure is modernized, monitored and is people friendly. Third, we need to provide best education to children by substantial increase in Navodaya type schools and creating infrastructure in government schools at par with public schools.
(The author is Chairman of Centre for Resource Management and Environment. The views expressed are personal.)
( Courtesy PIONEER )
That India was a perfect growth story before 2014 would be incorrect to claim, but is it any better seven years down the line under a single-party majority?
It is the economy, Stupid! An oft repeated reminder, the world over, to nations, its leaders and to its people that all other arguments are irrelevant if you do not have an economy that ensures- jobs, per capita income, welfare schemes and a thriving growth market. In India, it is a story of a nation that was deliberately waylaid from its goals at the altar of one party's inability to get it right for the nation. We have a nation that has been distracted by an agenda that only creates more schisms in anation as diverse as ours. That India was a perfect growth story before 2014 would be incorrect to claim, but is it any better seven years down the line under a single party majority that can ride roughshod over opposition? The answer is no, an emphatic no.
The National Statistical Office released the latest GDP figures, and it paints a grim picture of our economy, it exposes the government ineptitude to not just handle the economy but also the pandemic.An annual GDP that touched a high of 8.3 per cent in 2016-17 has recorded a negative growth of 7.3 per cent, this is the first time India has recorded negative annual growth since 1979-80.An annual nominal GDP that stood as high as 13.8 per cent in 2012-13 now stands at -3 per cent. So, should the Covid-19 pandemic alone be blamed for this? The datawill show you that it is otherwise.It started to fall from an unthought out demonetization in 2016, which Dr Manmohan Singh had rightfully called "organized loot & legalized plunder" and followed it up with the implementation of flawed GST in 2017, that GST has been an idea gone awry in implementation is clear from all the non-BJP states calling out its unfairness in the recent Council meet. The disagreements in the GST Council should be an indicator of how this will unfold.
The government of India continues to defend the fall in Indian economy as being much lesser than other countries, but that's incorrect, India has been amongst the worst hit. Acceptance to the truth is the only way to course correct. However, a party unwilling to learn will find that a difficult ask. Leaving some data, which government can refute at leisure, GDP growth rate of USA in 2020 -3.5 per cent, Germany -4.9 per cent, France -8.2 per cent, China 2.3 per cent, Japan -4.8 per cent and India at -7.3 per cent. India's GDP per capita income has come down from 10.6 per cent in 2016-17 to -5.4 per cent in 2020-21. Many countries including Bangladesh have overtaken India in per-capita-GDP terms.
The country has been seeing a steady rise in prices of essentials and with fuel prices hitting a century in many cities it is a question worth asking of the central government what it has done to bring relief to aamaadmi? The party that fought on the slogan mehengai ki maar is clearly in pyaarwith the rising prices. In the first three years, the government greatly benefited from very low crude oil prices, the Prime Minister even called himself a naseebwala, sadly the
badnaseebi is that we have elected a government not being able to control the prices. Despite a sharp fall in oil prices, instead of passing the benefits to the people the government has levied additional taxes on fuel at the cost of people's misery. India has been struggling with bad loans and NPAs in the banking system, a partial legacy of the UPA cannot be denied, however it has seen a phenomenal rise under BJP watch, a party that claimed it had a solution to the problem has in fact aggravated the problem RBI estimates suggest that India's NPAs bad loan ratio could surge to 13.5 per cent. which will add further burden to the GDP growth.
Joblessness in the country has been steadily rising under the watch of a party that promised 15 crore jobs. A year after demonetisation, as per government's own data - India's unemployment rate hit a 45-year high. India has started witnessing unemployment rates close to 6-7 per cent in the years leading up to Covid-19. It is estimated that 12.2 crore people have lost their jobs during Covid-19. India's middle class has shrunk by 3.2 crore and over 7.5 crore have been pushed into poverty.
When the first wave of the pandemic hit the country, the Prime Minister unilaterally enforced a strict lockdown. India barely gotfour hours to follow the orders- it led to unprecedented migrant crisis that India ever witnessedin its independent history, the union cabinet ministers continued to firefight with fudged data and made-uptruths to escape accountability. People went hungry, they died, they lost their incomes and their homes but the government continued to sing All is Well, India still does not have the data to the number of deaths caused due to the lockdown.The Prime Minister announced an Aatmanirbhar package that would be 10 per cent of GDP, but when Finance Minister speltit out it turned out to be barely one per cent of the GDP as confirmed by economic experts.
As the cases of Covid in the first wave began to slide we had BJP leaders calling it an endgame of Covid-19 and the party in its National Executive Committee applauded the Prime Minister for ending Covid in the nation. The finance minister and the RBIstarted to speak of V-shapedand K-shaped recoveries. The truth?We were hurtling not just into a second Covid wave which would be much worse but also bring along with it some more disastrous economic conditions, history will remember both. The year 2020-21 has been the worst year for India's economy& growth story in four decades. Aatmanirbhar Bharat was to revive the economy and provide support to businesses however despite its lofty promises the targets were missed. Many industries which were badly hit such as hospitality, food and beverage, entertainment were kept out of the ambit. Despite the government's absolute contempt for experts, they have suggested that the economy needs a strong dose of stimulus for it to pick up, increased government expenditure besides that of the Central Vista, direct transfers of cash - 200 million womenwith JanDhan accounts were given a sum of Rs.500 per month for a quarter in 2020 and after that the families have been left to fend for themselves.
The second wave of the pandemic hit the nation hard, the government that was busy patting itself on its back was caught unawares and their disconnect to the situation on ground created panic and havoc across the country, the damage to the economy will take a long time for recovery, despite RBI now claiming a W-shaped recovery, moving away from V and K! However,India has known to rise like a phoenix in the past, from a moment in time where it was on the brink of a collapse and was written off by most world economies. It rose at the back of some well thought out policies and with an acknowledgement that major reforms were needed. The liberalisation of economyhelped unleash high growth years for the nation, today India stands at that decision making place in time, it has to go full throttle to propel itself into India 3.0 in economic revival, backed by policies that keep best interests of the nation and not the politics of elections in mind.
The writer is a Rajya Sabha MP and Deputy leader Shiv Sena. The views expressed are personal.
( Courtesy Pioneer )
People, especially in rural and low-income areas, are in mortal dread of getting the jab
It is over a fortnight since hundreds of Government vaccination centres for the 18-44 age group in Delhi have remained shut because of vaccine shortage. The story is the same in several other States. It is the primary reason for the vaccination programme slackening. The other, and more important reason with serious implications, is vaccination hesitancy. It has afflicted the low-income group residential colonies, slums and the countryside the maximum. People are simply refusing to take the jab. They are running away from accredited social health activists (ASHA). Along with infection in the second wave, misinformation and rumours too have trickled into the rural areas. Several voluntary agencies that have visited the villages across the country return with the same message: It is very difficult to convince villagers. They believe what they have heard or read or seen on television. Nothing shakes their belief. In late April and May, there were reports of villagers running away from health workers carrying the infrared thermometers, thinking them to be guns. That is what they are called in the villages of Uttar Pradesh, for instance. Their orthodoxy and conservative beliefs strengthen the rumours and the half-baked information they get to hear about the vaccines. One of the bizarre reasons is that vaccines cause impotence. Or that they heard on television that vaccination after-effects can show after even two or three years. Some think vaccines cause death, some that they offer incomplete protection against COVID-19.
Some migrant and daily wage workers are diffident about taking vaccines because if they get fever as reaction, they might lose a day’s wages. People, particularly members of tribal communities in Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Rajasthan, use any and all excuses to not visit the vaccination centres. These centres have vaccines, but the queues are just not forming; at best the people are a trickle. The Union Government urgently needs to run a national campaign to dispel the rumours in rural areas. It needs to be a top-down campaign because the villagers and tribals are hardly listening to ASHA and health workers. The people will hear those in power or position who they can trust. It is their messages they will hear and believe. The countryside has had experience with several national immunisation programmes in the past, polio drops for example, and workers never had any problem administering the doses. The Chief Ministers have only now begun to personally tour rural areas to convince people to vaccinate themselves. The vaccination drive is boiling down to a paradoxical situation where vaccines are available in the rural areas for free but people are hesitant to take the jab, while in urban centres where vaccines are available at a cost in private centres, people with low financial means are unable to afford them. Later in June, and certainly in July, India will have plenty of vaccines. What will be needed are people to take the jabs.
( Courtesy Pioneer )
The leaders of every era should leave behind some architecture that represents the ethos of that era, like the Central Vista project
The Parliament House, where I sat until April 2000, made one feel welcome and important. It inspired me to participate in speech after speech. Our best speakers were in the Vajpayee Ministry and could not debate, only reply or wind up debates. It is the non-Ministers who had to do the debating and the routine speaking, plus asking questions. I attended every session day and generally sat until the House was adjourned for the next day.
In a different way, I loved my mother and she reciprocated as I was her only child. When she became 78, I wished she would live another 70 years or more. But she had become old with a broken femur; it was better for her to go. I let her go and, gracefully, did not shed a tear. Life is growth and progress, change is the inevitable law. The Parliament complex, in the year 2000, was already getting old. The plaster, paint and what-not applied during the non-session time made it look elegant as do rouge, powder and make-up make a lady pretty. Nevertheless, ageing was inevitable.
There were many committee and standing committee meetings and, if the convener was not a VIP, we were allotted pokey little rooms on an upper floor. I wondered why, in the first place, such small rooms were built. Then I discovered that a junior officer vacated his room for the sake of the meeting; there was no other space for us. We were then a total of 795 members. This was the number after a revision in the 1950s when the population of India was 40 crore plus. Today, India is believed to be at least three times as much.
I enquired from late Chief Minister Sahib Singh the number of people he earlier represented in the Lok Sabha. His answer was “at least 30 lakh”. Now, the large constituencies must be unmanageably huge. It is high time the number of members increased to 1,000. The seating is close, although comfortable.
We are now under the shadow of COVID and the new spacing has to be more liberal, which means the halls should be twice as large. Ditto goes for all the other facilities: the Central Hall, the canteens, the library, the ministerial chambers, the committee rooms et al.
The existing Parliament House was to train Indian representatives to be legislators. They were expected then to legislate or even debate subjects. For those limited intentions, everything at Parliament was spacious. But time has not stood still, nor has the clock stopped ticking. A century has passed by and it has taken its toll. Those visitors who have seen only the ground floor might question the need to build it again but those like me who have toured the upper storeys would know what is overdue and what is not.
Reading newspapers and watching the TV channels, I have found for months that the widely given advice is to spend and spend money to distribute to the last man in the queue of poverty. Beyond a point, how does one distribute money except by spending it on public works, as President Roosevelt had done 1932 onwards. When it comes to political opposition, leaders say how can you waste money on the luxury of the Central Vista when the COVID treatment needs the greatest attention. What an extraordinary contradiction between the economic masters, including Nobel Laureates, on the one hand and the only national Opposition, on the other?
The leaders of every era should leave behind some architecture that represents the ethos of that era. That is making, not writing, history. The Muslim rulers were conscious of this requirement; the Hindus did build enduring temples but little else. Unfortunately, iconoclasts in north India did not allow many temples to survive. In a way, some history was thus lost and we should be aware of this lacuna.
Those who have been inside the offices in, say, Shastri Bhawan and its companions Udyog, Nirman or Krishi Bhawans know what they are like. The first floor of Nirman Bhawan has been refurbished very well, the rest I don’t know. They are probably constructed in a hurry or cheaply or carelessly, or all three. That was done decades ago but we should now put these right. Europe gave great importance to architecture as the sentinels of an era. Look at the number of lovely State buildings in Mumbai, the statues of Kolkata which are now hidden at the back of Victoria Memorial.
Not as a lesson in iconoclasm but as the historical importance of architecture, let us quote Sir Arnold Toynbee, the great philosopher of history: “In the course of the first Russian occupation of Warsaw, the Russians had built an Eastern Orthodox Christian Cathedral in the city that had been the capital of the independent Roman Catholic country, Poland. The Russians had done this to give the Poles a continuous demonstration that the Russians were now the masters. After the re-establishment of Poland’s independence in 1918, the Poles pulled this cathedral down. I do not blame the Polish Government for having pulled down the Russian church.”
(The writer is a well-known columnist and an author. The views expressed are personal.)
( Courtesy Pioneer )
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month