|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic Highlights
4-Yr Degree, Silent on PSUs: CONG ON CAUTIOUS PATH By Shivaji Sarkar, 8 April 2024 |
|
|
Economic
Highlights
New
Delhi, 8 April 2024
4-Yr Degree, Silent on PSUs
CONG ON CAUTIOUS PATH
By Shivaji Sarkar
The Indian
National Congress has come out with a manifesto that looks pompous and well-intentioned
but less original and more reactive to the present policies.The party is
cautious even as it says it may replace the National Education Policy(NEP) but
is subdued on proposed novel path to deal with the sliding economy, eloquentlysilent
on PSUs and unnecessary 4-year-BA degree modelled on the highly expensive US
model.
It notes
overall dissatisfaction over NEP but limits it to “will revisit and amend the
New Education Policy after consulting with the state governments”. Does it mean
the4-year degree course to continue? Its scrapping could have highlighted deep concerns
to instil confidence in the youth, each of whom would spend at least Rs 3 lakh
a year extra and be delayed for job market. Overall, from unheard of four-year nursery
– to new four-year-degree – a child loses four years during education. Congress
could have highlighted the unnecessary fourth year at the degree level to cost
two crore aspirants’additional expenditure of Rs 6 lakh crore a year? If four
years loss over the period are calculated in financial and social terms, it’s
unfathomable.
The
manifesto avoids a word on the PSUs. The Nav Sankalp Economic Policy resets the
button with “3-Ws” - work, wealth and welfare for reviewing GST - hope of most
small traders, promote manufacturing and make jobs the cornerstone, rejecting
jobless growth. A new orientation since 1991. Its definition of work is the
same as in the present - self-employment and starting business.
It
highlights that Reserve Bank of India’s finds 60 percent of central projects
stalled causing a cost escalation of Rs 5 lakh crore. It could have said these
would be scrapped. On the labour laws too, the party is evasive on undoing the amendments
denying them the rights.
On
corruption, it says, “will probe demonetisation, Rafale deal, Pegasus spyware,
the Electoral Bonds scheme and bring to law those who made illegal gains
through these measures”. Rahul Gandhi at the launch said the electoral bonds
showed that political funding to the BJP was through “extortion and putting
pressure” on the corporates. A welcome move. It has also promised reversal of
Agnipath army recruitment. In most such Opposition promises, it was observed
that once in government, the issues are shelved and some may even say these
were “jumlas” as manifestos have turned out.Some probes have been mere
witch hunting. In December 2013, the GST was stalled terming it anti-people but
once in power, those who stalled hurriedly enacted it at the world’s highest
rates.
The 1971
Congress manifesto is remembered to the day for its classic “Garibi Hatao”
(remove poverty) slogan. The slogan “five Nyaya” (five justices) may be
a good idea but is not inspiring. It calls for five pillars of justice– Justice
for Youth, Justice for Women’, Justice for Farmers, Justice for Workers, and
Justice for Shareholders. What is so great about it if it has to counter mumkin
hai(it’s possible)!
The
convenor P Chidambaram has been criticising government performances in his
newspaper columns and even challenged the new statistics. It does not reflect
in his document.It even does not question the figures of 3-trillion economy,
which has a high repayment of Rs 10 lakh crore and reduces Rs 47 lakh crore
2024-25 budget to Rs 37 lakh crore. The 7 percent growth figures are being
questioned by the World Bank.
The
communication could have been sharper. It could have highlighted the weaker
consumer sentiments than five years back as RBI’s Consumer Confidence Survey
denotes. In 2024, fewer people report improvement in employment of income
situation.The middle class is promised stable income-tax. It does not promise
that it would be at the level of 22 percent corporate taxes.
To
combat unemployment, Congress has guaranteed a one-year apprenticeship with a
private or a public sector company to every diploma holder or college graduate
below the age of 25 years. The wages of workers under the Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act will also be increased to Rs 400 per
day – the minimum national wages it announces. It seems to have forgotten that
apprenticeship scheme was introduced by Indira Gandhi in 1970s. Repeated several times. Each time it was a
cropper as the private sector never liked it and PSUs were lukewarm.
Railways
are on the path of Air India disaster with dynamic fare aimed at boosting air
travel. All metros in the country except Kolkata are running in losses.
Manifesto could have harped on it and suggested pocket and eco-friendly solutions
like inexpensive elevated trams replacing money guzzlers.
Caste-based
census could help it politically to an extent but that cannot be a road map for
creating jobs. It has got into the trap of caste politics. The party is
forthright on highlighting the abysmal Manipur situation, a silver lining.
The
manifesto has spoken of high petrol prices,questioned “cess” raj but is silent
on atrociously high petrol road cess toll of Rs 32.9 per litre introduced promising
to abolish toll gates. The country needs freedom from extortionist toll
collections of over Rs 10 lakh crore through cess and toll gates causing high
inflation.
Similarly,
it is silent on scrapping illicit law for car/tractor junking and high
education fees. These cause enormous wealth loss to farmers and average
families. With a bit of empathy, it could have touched millions of hearts. It
is a whale of political opportunity to cater to the people.
It has
done well to promise that job applications would not have any fee. The call for
opening more Kendriya Vidyalayas, Navodaya Vidyalayas and Kasturba Gandhi Girls
schools are reassuring. The move to introduce free education up to class ten is
appropriate. Would it be so also in private public schools? It has a model in Uttar
Pradesh. In 1960s, the Congress government introduced the system of paying
teachers’ salaries even for private schools ushering in required changes in the
education scenario. That brings the fundamental difference.
It has
decided to review the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and remove the provisions
that restrict freedom of speech and expression that violate the right to
privacy. It ignores the more draconian Bharat Samhita or other amendments to
the Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code. The powers to misuse ED, CBI
and other bodies emanate from it.
Still
the promise to have a fearless society may raise hopes. The nation aspires that
with these new moves the political discourse would turn for the better.---INFA
(Copyright, India News &
Feature Alliance)
|
|
Parting Ways In Kashmir: NC, PDP JOLT TO INDIA BLOC, By Insaf, 6 April 2024 |
|
|
Round The States
New
Delhi, 6 April 2024
Parting Ways In Kashmir
NC, PDP JOLT TO INDIA BLOC
By Insaf
INDIA
bloc partners in Kashmir part ways. The principal parties in the Valley, the NC
and PDP decided to nominate each of their candidates for the three Lok Sabha
seats, dashing hopes of the foes truly turning friends. Within 24 hours, former
Chief Ministers, Mehbooba Mufti (PDP) and Omar Abdullah (NC) were heard blaming
each other of slamming the unity door. After Abdullah was quoted on Tuesday
saying PDP was unlikely to contest the polls, Mufti on Wednesday said it was
‘harsh’ and insinuating that her party had become irrelevant and so she had no
option but to go alone. However, Abdullah maintains it’s her doing as she
doesn’t want a pact even for Assembly polls, (if held in September)! Sadly,
this pow-vow impacts not just Opposition bloc, but also Gupkar alliance,
demanding restoration of Article 370. Both had earlier spoken of jointly taking
on BJP and its ‘secret allies’— perhaps referring to DPAP founder and former
Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad, who has announced contesting from Anantnag-Rajouri-Poonch seat. Importantly, while the
NC has decided to leave the two seats in Jammu region for Congress, PDP is yet
to take a call. Will there be a reproachment?
* * * *
Delhi’s
Good & Bad Luck
The past
week has stirred like a pendulum for AAP, ruling dispensation in Delhi. On
Monday Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was sent to judicial custody till April
15, on Tuesday MP and close aide Sanjay Singh got bail from Supreme Court, was
released from jail after six months on Wednesday and on Thursday, Delhi High Court
refused to entertain a PIL seeking removal of Kejriwal as CM following his
arrest saying: “At times, personal interest has to be subordinate to national
interest but that is his personal call. If he doesn’t want to do that it is up
to him. We are a court of law and have to go by the law. Your remedy doesn’t lie
here, it lies elsewhere. You go before the competent forum.” Interestingly, the
ED too has different yardsticks in the Delhi excise policy-linked money
laundering case. While objecting to bail being granted to Kejriwal, it said his
release could hamper the probe but conceded it had no objections if Singh is
given bail as well as failed to provide an answer where the money was. On
release, a relived Singh gave hope to party cadres “Arvind Kejriwal and our
leaders have been put behind bars and I am fully confident that yeh
jail ke taale tutenge hamaare saare neta chutenge (the locks of jail
will break, and all our leaders will come out)” Many would be praying his words
turn out prophetic.
* * * *
Odisha
Big Switch-Over
Who to
vote can be a conundrum for the voter in Odisha! As the State gears up for both
Lok Sabha and Assembly elections, the ruling BJD and its main challenger now,
the BJP have their leaders switching sides merrily. And to their advantage or
say hitting the lottery by instantly winning their new party’s ticket. Chief
Minister Naveen Patnaik has nominated at least seven of the turncoats, about 30%
either from BJP or Congress within hours as BJD candidates, of the 20 announced
so far for 21 LS seats. Likewise, the BJP has given tickets to three senior
leaders of BJD, including six-time MP Bhatruhari Mahtab, who either left or
were removed from party or denied tickets. Who will benefit more is the big
question. BJP is hoping to turn the tables given it upstaged Congress in 2019
polls and is now encashing on rumblings within BJD. Apparently, Patnaik’s private
secretary-turned Cabinet Minister rank VK Pandian has acquired an all-powerful
position, upsetting party MLAs and MPs. Will anger spill-over to the electorate?
The voter will first need to be alert and tally the candidate with the party
and symbol before he presses the EVM button, not to be stumped by the
switch-over.
* * * *
WB
‘Safest for Women’?
West
Bengal may no longer be able to boast of being ‘the safest state for women’.
This, as the Sandeshkhali case of alleged sexual assault and land grabbing in
North 24 Parganas district is continuing to be a hot potato in ensuing polls.
On Thursday, hearing PILs, Calcutta High Court observed it would be “highly
shameful” if even 1% cent of allegations of sexual assault there were found to
be true, and WB’s image as ‘safest state for women’ will fall! This after a
lawyer had submitted a compilation of 100-odd affidavits of alleged victims of
sexual assault other than of violence and land grabbing, among other PILs
seeking transfer of case to CBI. State’s Advocate General questioned their
conviction rate in cases they were investigating in the state and saying
central agencies have ‘lost the trust posed in them.’ But, court was firm: “The
entire district administration and ruling dispensation have to owe moral
responsibility, 100% responsibility and that ‘if one affidavit is proved right,
then statistics falls, public image falls, opinion falls…If it falls and
crumbles, you cannot resurrect it.” Wonder if this would bother Didi. Right
now, she needs to stop Modi and team from making substantial inroads in her
State.
* * * *
Soren
& 31 Cr Land
Former
Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren has more to lose than just his kursi
(chair). The ED has attached 8.86 acres of land in Ranchi, valued at Rs
31,07,02,480 as per urban residential property rate. This is part of the
chargesheet filed against him and four others in the alleged money laundering
investigation. Saying that Soren was in ‘possession’ of this asset since
2010-11 in a ‘camouflaged and concealed’ manner, the ED on Thursday requested
the court for confiscation of the plot. Recall, Soren was arrested in January
and is lodged in Birsa Munda central jail. In its chargesheet, the ED, which
says the court has taken cognisance of,
has claimed Soren’s associate, Prasad, a former Jharkhand revenue dept
official and custodian of government records, was a member of ‘a syndicate
which was involved in acquiring lands by fraudulent means which included
tampering with original government registers, falsification of government
records and manufacturing fake documents.’ Will the case turn out to be a mega
racket of land mafia in the States, as alleged? Time will tell. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
The Katchatheevu Island: FLOGGING A DEAD HORSE!, By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri, 5 April 2024 |
|
|
Round
The Word
New
Delhi, 5 April 2024
The Katchatheevu Island
FLOGGING A DEAD HORSE!
By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri
(Secretary General, Assn for Democratic Socialism)
A tweet
by the Prime Minister has stirred up a hornets’ nest in diplomatic and
political circles. On March 31, Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted, “Eye
opening and startling new facts reveal how Congress callously gave away
Katchatheevu Islet to Sri Lanka.” Critics in no time screamed that Modi was
trying to score a political point in Tamil Nadu. The state votes for Parliament
on 19 April. The Congress and DMK are in alliance. Modi added that Congress government
did it in tacit concurrence of DMK patriarch M. Karunanidhi. This incurred sharp
reactions from DMK as well as the Congress, and some diplomatic counter from
Sri Lanka.
Scanning
the reactions, the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, son of M. Karunanidhi
tried to take a pot shot against the Prime Minister, “What steps Prime Minister
has taken to retrieve the Islet? Karunanidhi had opposed ceding it away.”
Stalin’s reaction was countering the Prime Minister as well as appealing to the
Tamil sentiments, mainly the fishermen, associated with the Islet. The Congress
contends that the Islet was given away as a part of friendly arrangement. Sri
Lankan government stated, the sovereignty of the Islet has been settled by the
1974 and 1976 Boundary Agreements.
The
Prime Minister’s tweet rings a bell regardless of accusations of political
opportunism. Under the Congress
leadership, India lost quite a bit of territory and strategic advantages,
ironically, after the British pulled out of the Indian Sub-Continent. I am
referring to about 5000 sq km of territory under Chinese occupation, and in
particular, the loss of Tibet, an independent country to the Chinese. The
British Administration in India had maintained Tibet as a buffer between China
and India. Historians argue that Chou-en-Lai, the Chinese Premier talked Nehru
into legitimising Chinese sovereignty over Tibet without any reciprocal
concession. Nehru acquiesced in Chinese wish as “he had too much faith and
confidence in China.”
On
Katchatheevu, what is the issue? Katchatheevu is a tiny Island consisting of
285 acres in the Palk Straight, a stretch of ocean between India and Sri Lanka.
It is 1.6 kms long and 300 meters wide and 33 kms far from the Indian coast, in
the North-West of Rameshwaram. Its distance from Jaffna, Sri Lanka is about 62
kms. There is only one structure on this Islet a church built by the British in
the 20th Century and run by pastors from India and Sri Lanka. Both
countries stake claim to fishing rights in the waters around Katchatheevu.
In 1974,
Sri Lanka and India signed a Maritime Boundary Agreement which ended the
dispute. India relinquished any claim
over the Island. The Agreement affected the rights of Indians in Katchatheevu.
Since then, Indian fishermen continued to be arrested by Sri Lankan Naval
authorities as India had surrendered fishing rights in the Island. A subsequent
pact signed on March 23, 1976 about Gulf of Mannar, the Bay of Bengal and
related matters “settled beyond doubt” the sovereignty of Sri Lanka over the
Islet.
In a
reply by the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama to their
Parliament in September 2008, the Minister quotes Article 6 of the 1974
Agreement that says, “By this Article only navigational rights of the vessels
of both Sri Lanka and India over each other’s waters have been preserved”. The
provisions of Articles 5 and 6 taken together “Do not confer any fishing right
on the Indian fishermen or vessels to engage in fishing in Sri Lankan waters”.
Interestingly,
the Minister added Indian fishermen could only have the access to Katchatheevu
in order to “dry their nets and catch”. The 1976 Agreement endorsed the
position established by the 1974 Agreement. In the 1976 Agreement, “Each party
shall respect rights of navigation through the territorial sea and exclusive
economic zone”. The Congress argument refers to the exchange of territories
around these Agreements. India secured, in return, the exclusive rights of
Wadge Bank the waters in the South of Cape Comorin.
The DMK
argument is that Karunanidhi had not consented to the 1976 Agreement which
deprived Indian fishermen of their rights to fish around Katchatheevu; he was
not in power at that time. But the RTI document reveals the facts to the
contrary. As per the minutes of a meeting between India’s Foreign Secretary and
then Tamil Nadu CM Karunanidhi in 1974, Karunanidhi consented to redrawing of
India-Sri Lanka Maritime Boundary that would leave Katchatheevu to Sri Lanka.
The Agreement between India and Sri Lanka was signed on June 26-28, 1974, within
a week of the meeting between Karunanidhi and the Foreign Secretary on June 19,
1974.
The
DMK’s contention that it was the 1976 Agreement which surrendered the fishing
rights in Katchatheevu when Karunanidhi was not in power. This does stand the factual
scrutiny as India had already surrendered the fishing rights in 1974 itself, with
Karunanidhi on board. It is true that the plight of fishermen in Tamil Nadu has
sporadically prompted Tamil politicians to raise the issue of Katchatheevu. In
fact, a case was filed by the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Ms.
Jayalalitha at the Supreme Court of India. Sri Lankan government maintain that
any decision given by court outside the jurisdiction of Sri Lanka would not be
binding on the Island country.
Apparently,
BJP is attempting to correct some strategic mistakes committed in the past. As
said above, giving away Tibet is one such blunder. Taking Kashmir into the
United Nations as Indian Army was clearing the Pak-backed tribal invaders is
another. Several such lapses have been pointed out by historians. I have
referred to quite a few of them in this column. Digging into the debates in the
1960s about Katchatheevu, indicate an indifferent approach adopted by Nehru. As
per the available documents, Nehru said that he attached, “no importance at all
to Katchatheevu and that he would have no hesitation in giving up claims to it".
At the same time, the officials of the Foreign Ministry and other experts
thought that India had a ‘good legal case to assert claim over Katchatheevu’; an
Indian king “continuously and interruptedly” ruled the Island between 1875 and
1948.
Nehru’s attitude
was similar when he harshly commented that ‘not a blade of grass grew in Aksai
Chin’. This was during a debate in Rajya Sabha when China was invading,
infiltrating and occupying Ladakh (Aksai Chin). In fact, a Member of
Parliament, Mahavir Tyagi sarcastically retorted to Nehru pointing to his bald
head, “there is no single hair on my head, shall I then cut it off?” In any
case, the historians and experts attribute Nehru’s statement as a lame excuse
for the failure of not being able to defend Indian Territory against Chinese
aggression.
Of
course, Katchatheevu is not the same as any territory occupied or claimed by
China. It was given away or relinquished under a peaceful, negotiated
agreement. Also, Sri Lanka is a friendly country. One may say Prime Minister is
flogging a dead horse; it is a political rhetoric during election time. However,
as said, the historic lapses with regard to our territory are painfully
reminded through the reference to Katchatheevu. The country has to deal with
that pain, by correcting the fault lines and precluding their recurrence. ----INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Judiciary and Restraint, By Inder Jit, 4 April 2024 |
|
|
REWIND
New Delhi, 4
April 2024
Judiciary and Restraint
By Inder Jit
(Released on 21 March 1978)
Everyone
today swears by the independence of the judiciary. Happily, no one talks any
longer of committed judges. However, a question which needs to be asked; are we
doing enough to uphold and strengthen the judiciary and its independence? True,
the Janata Government at the Centre restored last month the well-settled
convention of appointing the senior-most judge as the Chief Justice of India.
The decision to name Mr Justice Chandrachud
as the new Chief Justice was hailed widely and helped to revive popular
faith in New Delhi’s commitment to an independent judiciary. But a great deal
more remains to be done both by the Government and the Opposition parties. Healthy conventions have yet to be established in regard
to the sound concept of judicial aloofness. Likewise, we have still to build up
traditions of Parliamentary restraint vis a vis the judiciary. It is not enough
that the judiciary is independent. It must also be helped to appear
independent.
These
thoughts are prompted by a recent happening in the Rajya Sabha which, alas, has
not attracted deserved attention. On Tuesday last week, Congressmen accused the
Union Government with interference in the independence of the judiciary. They
alleged that the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court, Mr Justice
Chandrasekhar, had been arbitrarily transferred to Karnataka High Court so as
to enable Mr Justice Satish Chandra, brother-in-law of the Union Law Minister,
Mr Shanti Bhushan, to be appointed Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court. In
fact, Mr D.N. Dwivedi, the member who raised the issue, asserted that Mr
Justice Chandrasekhar, who had been transferred from Karnataka High Court to
Allahabad High Court during the Emergency without his consent, had not
expressed a desire to go back and was “very happy” in Allahabad. Later members
of the two Congresses, led by Mr Kamlapati Tripathi and Mr Bhola Paswan
Shastri, walked out of the House in protest against “unsatisfactory replies” by
Mr Shanti Bhushan.
What are
the facts? Mr Justice Chandrasekhar did “request” a transfer, according to the
letter which he wrote to the then Chief Justice of India in September last. The
text of the letter was read to the House by Mr Shanti Bhushan who also
explained how it was only fair to have acceded to Mr Justice Chandrasekhar’s
request. Mr Justice Chandrasekhar, it may be recalled, was transferred to
Allahabad as punishment for his independence. He had before him in Bangalore
important habeas corpus petitions involving Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee, Mr L.K.
Advani, Mr Madhu Dandwate and Mr Shyam Nandan Mishra. On four occasions at
least he gave orders in favour of the petitioners and the Union Government was
constrained to appeal to the Supreme Court. At one stage, Mr Justice
Chandrasekhar even threatened to hold the then Attorney-General, Mr Niren De,
guilty of contempt, forcing the Centre to fly Mr Advani and two others from New
Delhi back to Bangalore by a special plane. An unwell Mr. Vajpayee was in Bangalore already.
Mr
Justice Satish Chandra, who was appointed a High Court Judge on October 7,
1963, should have become Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court on May 9, 1977
in the normal course when Mr Justice K.B. Asthana retired as Chief Justice. But
the transfer of Mr Justice Chandrasekhar to Allahabad during the Emergency blocked
his elevation; Mr Justice Chandrashekhar became a High Court judge on September
20, 1963 and was thus 17 days senior to Mr Justice Satish Chandra. Two days
before Mr Justice Chandrasekhar took over as Chief Justice on May 1977, Mr
Justice Satish Chandra resigned. Fortunately for him, be resigned with
prospective effect from August 1, 1977. (The procedure, I am told, is not unusual
as it allows the judge to take care of his leave etc; Mr Justice H.R. Khanna,
for instance, resigned on January 20, 1977. But the resignation became
effective from March 12, 1977.) On July 15, however, he withdrew his
resignation and sat on the court till July 31. But on August 1 Mr Justice Satish
Chandra’s right to withdraw his resignation was challenged by a lawyer through
a writ petition.
A
five-man bench of the Allahabad High Court allowed on October 28, 1977 the writ
petition by a majority of three judges to two and upheld the contention that
the resignation of a judge become effective as soon as it was submitted. Mr
Justice Satish Chandra was consequently restrained from acting as a judge. But
he and the Union of India, which was impleaded as the appointing authority,
went in appeal to the Supreme Court. On December 8 last, five-man bench of the
Supreme Court, headed by Mr Justice Sarkaria, allowed the appeal by s majority
of four judges to one. Mr Justice Satish Chandra was thereafter allowed to
function as a judge, and his way cleared for appointment as the new Chief
Justice of the Allahabad High Court in view of his position as the senior most
puisne judge. Incidentally, Mr Justice Satish Chandra is senior to 13 Chief Justices of High Courts out of a total of
18. He is also senior to seven of the Supreme Court's thirteen Judges.
Was the
Union Law Minister guilty of nepotism, corruption and “high conspiracy” in the
whole drama as alleged in the Rajya Sabha? A few facts are of interest. First,
Mr Shanti Bhushan could have helped his brother-in-law to become the Chief
Justice even on May 9 last year in case he so desired. Opinion in Now Delhi in
April last favoured early repatriation to their home states of all the judges
transferred during the Emergency without their consent. Second, Mr Justice
Chandrasekhar put in his request for a transfer back to Karnataka High Court in
September -- well before the Allahabad High Court gave its decision on the writ
petition against Mr Justice Satish Chandra; the Supreme Court’s decision came
only on December 8. Third, all matters relating to the case of Mr Justice
Satish Chandra, beginning with his resignation from the High Court and ending
with the recommendation of the UP Chief Minister that he be appointed Chief
Justice, were directly placed before the Prime Minister and were dealt by him,
as Mr. Shanti Shushan candidly told the Rajya Sabha.
The
manner in which the Opposition raised the matter in the Rajya Sabha symbolises
an unhealthy aspect of our parliamentary functioning. Various issues are raised
in the House straightaway and sensation created ignoring time-honoured
practices adopted in the Commons. Initially, Mr Dwivedi and other Congressmen
could have taken advantage of Parliament’s inner lobby and first raised the
matter with Mr Shanti Bhushan informally. In case they were unable to get
satisfaction, they could have then taken up the matter with the Prime Minister.
The sensitive issue should have been brought up in the House only if the Prime
Minister had also failed to give them satisfaction. In the House, too, the
Opposition could have gracefully accepted the facts, once Mr Shanti Bhushan read
out the text of Mr Justice Chandrasekhar’s letter. Indeed, there was a good case
for the Opposition to respond positively to Mr Biju Patnaik’s interjection: “It’s
time to apologise.”
Apart
from parliamentary restraint, we also need to build up a tradition of judicial
aloofness which is necessary if the judiciary is also to appear independent. No
one today can justifiably subscribe fully to the old British dictum that a judge should live like a hermit
and work like a horse. Nevertheless, few can be happy with the manner in which
even some of the highest among our judges have conducted themselves over the
years. I remember a former Chief Justice of India who took enthusiastically to
New Delhi’s diplomatic whirl and was, on occasions, seen to make a beeline for
the bar on arrival. Some years ago, also I saw High Court Chief Justice seeking an introduction to the Union
Home Minister at a wedding reception in New Delhi and, after bending low like a
seasoned darbari, saying: “Sir, I have been waiting for this great privilege
and honour for a long time”. I have also witnessed a Chief Justice of India throw all discretion to the
winds and talk animatedly at a Rashtrapati Bhawan reception in turn to the Law
Minister, the Home Minister and, finally, the former Prime Minister virtually
on the eve of a major judgement by the Supreme Court on a matter vitally
concerning the Union Government.
The standards have continued to fall and
it is not uncommon to find Supreme Court judges go out of their way to
cultivate politicians. Not long ago, a veteran legal luminary was shocked to
find senior Union Ministers as fellow guest at an informal dinner hosted by
Supreme Court judge. Things, of course, virtually touched their low standards
during the Emergency when some judges went out to prove their commitment to
Mrs. Gandhi and her regime. Clearly, the new Chief Justice of India, Mr. Chandrachud, needs to take a good
look at the whole problem and set up new standards and norms of conducts. He
could consult not only some of his predecessors
but also eminent veterans among the legal luminaries. Once such veteran
even objects to the Chief Justice of India attending state banquets every other
day and lining up with Union Ministers to greet the visiting dignitary. “Let
him have a banquet of his own for a visiting Chief Justice only” he says.
Much else will also need to be done to restore the
image and independence of the judiciary, eroded increasingly over the past
thirty years in various ways by an executive which exploited, among other
things, the absence of a ban on the appointment of retired judges to influence
them and become supreme. In a classic case, a Supreme Court judge accepted
Chairmanship of the Law Commission, a body directly subordinate to the Law
Ministry, some months prior to retirement. Incredible as it may seem, he
attended the Supreme Court in the morning and the Commission in the afternoon.
There is thus need on all sides to review the matter and take steps to
strengthen the judiciary as a vital limb of our democracy. Nothing should be
done by anyone which either erodes its independence or unfairly tarnishes its
image. What we are is undoubtedly important. Much more important, however, is
what we appear to be.--- INFA.
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Democracy Vs Autocracy: POLITICAL CHAOS INEVITABLE?, By Dhurjati Mukherjee, 3 April 2024 |
|
|
Open Forum
New Delhi, 3 April 2024
Democracy Vs Autocracy
POLITICAL CHAOS INEVITABLE?
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
Congress
President Mallikarjun Kharge recently stated that a reign of autocracy and
hooliganism has been unleashed in the country by the ruling dispensation. This
is concern expressed by other Opposition parties who say there’s no semblance
of democracy in the country with the government using the central agencies to
harass political opponents.
The recent
arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, and also that of his
counterpart in Jharkhand Hemant Soren are glaring examples of the government’s
ulterior motive. In the case of Kejriwal, apart from Germany, the US demanded a
“fair, transparent and timely legal process”. However, Prime Minister Modi has
said no matter how big the corrupt are, action will be taken against them.
It may
be interesting to note that Aurobindo Parma’s director, P. Sarath Chandra
Reddy, on whose statement Kejriwal was arrested by the ED in the excise
policy-linked money laundering case is himself an accused in the same case and
contributed Rs 59.5 crore to the BJP through electoral bonds before and after
his arrest. It is said that Reddy was used to arrest the AAP convenor, widely perceived
as an upright politician.
The
government, which is riding on a so-called Modi wave, is trying all sorts of
tricks to put obstacles before the Opposition through various measures. Apart
from the arrest, the Congress has been served IT notices demanding Rs 1823
crore, a hammer blow that threatened to deepen the financial crisis ahead of
the general election and prompted the party to accuse the government of ‘tax
terrorism’. This is in addition to the earlier fine of Rs 210 crore imposed on
the party and freezing some of its bank accounts.
On the
basis of available data, Congress Treasurer Ajay Maken pointed out that the
ruling party should have been fined for multiple violations of the norms
applied to the Congress as “the BJP did not give details of 1287 transactions
worth Rs 42 crore in 2018-19; no addresses of the donors were given and
calculated by the same criteria that was applied to us, a demand of Rs 4600
crore should have been raised”.
The laws
on money laundering, sedition, unlawful activities and hurting sentiments of
communities are so vaguely worded that the government can arrest anyone on
flimsy grounds. The government is also trying to prove that the Opposition leaders
are corrupt, obviously indicating that those who belong to the BJP have a clean
image. But will this strategy of the BJP be accepted by the educated
electorate?
This is
reiterated by an article of Yamini Aiyar, who just before her resignation as
chief of the Centre for Policy Research wrote in The Economist (on March
23): “The incumbent, Bhartiya Janata Party government of Narendra Modi is set
to win a third term and surveys show that the prime minister’s personal
popularity is at an all-time high. But his governance, built on aggressive
centralisation, legitimised by a cult of personality and undergirded by an
exclusionary Hindu nationalist ideology, is eroding India’s democracy. If
unchecked, the consequences for the country’s political, economic and social
fabric with grim”.
Incidentally,
the clean image of the ruling party has been negated by the recently released
data on electoral bonds by the State Bank of India. Apart from the fact that
the BJP was the largest beneficiary of electoral bonds, it is significant to
note that over 60 companies that were set up after the announcement of the
electoral bond scheme in early 2017 gave close to Rs 260 crore to political
parties through bonds. Of this, over Rs 100 crore or over 40% went to the BJP
while the BRS was the second largest recipient with Rs 61 crore or about a
fourth of the money. Moreover, it is amply clear that the bonds were given
under pressure and have encouraged a
quid pro quo.
Further,
it has been revealed that several companies bagged huge government contracts
after donating via electoral bonds, which allowed donors and recipients to
remain anonymous, some NGOs alleged. BJP was the biggest beneficiary of EBs
paid by loss-making companies and certain corporate groups. The Association of
Democratic Reforms (ADR), NGO Common Cause and individuals like Prashant
Bhushan and Niti Sethi have alleged that: (i) 16 companies that made no profit
in the preceding three years paid a combined Rs 710 crore through the EBs with
the BJP receiving Rs 460 crore of this amount;(ii)certain companies paid the
BJP a total sum of Rs 1751 crore through EBs and received government contracts
worth Rs 62,000 crore; and (iii)41 group of companies paid the BJP a sum of Rs
2471 crore via the bonds after facing raids from the CBI, ED and income tax
authorities.
The
other side of the picture is that the INDIA alliance has yet to project a
unified picture of its allies with a coherent strategy though Congress leader,
Rahul Gandhi has been harping on valid socio-economic issues, claiming the
government neglect over the years. However, the BJP has conveniently shifted focus
instead on religious issues and Hindu nationalism.
For the
party, the focus was on northern and western states where Hindutva propagation
would win the heart of the masses. Added to this, the consecration of the
Ayodhya Temple fulfilled the ambit of the government’s steady move from a
secular approach to Hindu nationalism, reinforced by the notification of the
recent CAA rules.
The
educated electorate in southern states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and
Telangana may not support the BJP’s strategy of Hindu domination and imposition
of Brahmanical culture in the country. These states are highlighting the social
and economic issues plaguing the country and reaching out to the poor and
neglected sections.
The
burning issues of unemployment and underemployment, food inflation, the
increase in unpaid labour and the disparity between the formal and informal
sector need to be addressed by the Centre and respective state governments. The
‘pro-rich policy’ of the BJP has helped in increasing the wealth of
billionaires by 280% between 2014 and 2022, ten times the growth in the average
national income, as per statistics released by Kharge.
India’s
transformation that has been witnessed in recent years resulted from the order
changing from a liberal democracy to what the opposition terms as an autocracy.
The idea of India is also under transformation – from a secular inclusive State
that glorified diversity in thought, culture and faith to one that is based on
one faith, one culture and a strong nationalism that glorifies the nation
state. Not just the BJP, which is said to be the main villain of the pieced, the
authoritarian tendency is also manifest in the TMC, BRS and some other regional
parties.
Finally,
in a society where power and money are becoming decisive factors in politics,
the controlling manner in which the Centre and most states are governed, and
the rising inequality and dwindling incomes of the bottom 30-35% does not augur
well for the country. If changes don’t take place, social fragmentation,
economic disparity, and chaos is inevitable. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
| | << Start < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| Results 37 - 45 of 6001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|