China offers to rename OBOR to allay India’s fears
Outlines a four-point solution to ‘manage differences’
•China is prepared to consider renaming the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) if it would end India’s reservations over its One Belt One Road (Or Belt and Road Initiative) passing through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), the Chinese Ambassador to India said here, insisting that the OBOR has no connection to “sovereignty disputes.”
•The offer was made by Luo Zhaohui on Friday during a closed-door interaction at the United Services Institution, a military think-tank in Delhi.
•Mr. Luo outlined a 4-point solution to “manage differences” between India and China, including a new treaty on cooperation, restarting talks on a free trade agreement (FTA), an early resolution to the border issue and aligning the B&R with India’s “Act East policy.”
Territorial dispute
•“China has no intention to get involved in the sovereignty and territorial disputes between India and Pakistan,” Mr. Luo told the audience of mostly retired armed service officers.
•“The CPEC is for promoting economic cooperation and connectivity. It has no connections to or impact on sovereignty issues. Even we can think about renaming the CPEC,” Mr. Luo said, referring to India’s public opposition to the inclusion of projects that lie in PoK’s area of Gilgit-Baltistan.
•Contacted by The Hindu , the MEA did not respond to the ambassador’s comments. India has thus far refused to confirm or regret its attendance at China’s Belt and Road Forum to be held in Beijing on May 14-15. According to the Chinese government more than 100 countries will participate, and all SAARC countries minus India have already signed on to the 60-nation infrastructure initiative first proposed in 2013. No official Indian participation has been indicated so far.
Different offences cannot be boxed into one trial, says court
Says joint trial is an exception, the norm is separate trials for distinct offences
•A general conspiracy which gives birth to a cascade of distinct offences committed in various places spread over several years and involving different accused persons cannot be boxed into one trial. This would lead to injustice, the Supreme Court held on Monday.
•This was the crux of the judgment delivered by a Supreme Court Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy as they held two former Bihar chief ministers and a State chief secretary culpable to stand trial separately for each and every alleged crime they have been charged with in connection with the multi-crore fodder scam.
•The accused persons were discharged by the Jharkhand HC, which held that since they have been convicted in one of the cases linked to the fodder scam, they need not stand trial for the others.
‘Double jeopardy’
•All the cases had their genesis in the same “general conspiracy” and a person cannot stand trial again for the same offence for which he has already been convicted. This, the High Court had said, would attract ‘double jeopardy.’
•But Justice Mishra, who wrote the judgment, said, “There may be larger conspiracy and smaller conspiracy which may develop in successive stages involving different accused persons. In the instant case, defalcations have been made in various years by combination of different accused persons.”
•It reasoned that though “the conspiracy was a general conspiracy to keep on issuing licence in the names of fictitious firms and to share the benefits arising out of those licences when no real independent person was the licensee, it is apparent that the case is quite distinguishable. In the instant case, different accused persons exist with the help of whom amount has been withdrawn in different years. It is not a case that only a few persons had benefited each and every year.”
•The court quoted the oft-repeated precedent that a joint trial is an exception and the norm is separate trials for distinct offences. “There may be a situation where in furtherance of general conspiracy, offences take place in various parts of India and several persons are killed at different times. Each trial has to be separately held and the accused to be punished separately for the offence committed in furtherance of conspiracy. In case there is only one trial for such conspiracy for separate offences, it would enable the accused person to go scot-free,” the SC held.
Push for private sector in defence production
Centre moots tie-up with global firms
•The Government has accelerated efforts to finalise the ambitious Strategic Partnership (SP) model, which would give a major boost to private sector participation in defence manufacturing.
Guidelines on the anvil
•As part of the stepped up efforts, the Defence Ministry has scheduled consultations with the industry to get their feedback in the next couple of days.
•The policy, which is part of the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) 2016, will set out guidelines on how major Indian private sector companies can tie up with global Original Equipment Manufacturers in critical military systems and platforms.
•Officials said several consultations had been held over the last month. Arun Jaitley, after he took additional charge of the Defence Ministry, was briefed on it and he was keen to approve it at the earliest.
•“It could unlock some of the big projects that are stalled, including the new line of submarines and single engine fighter aircraft. It should be out in the next two months,” a defence official told The Hindu .
•An interaction between the defence ministry and industry representatives was scheduled for May 11. It would be attended by Mr. Jaitley and Defence Secretary G. Mohan Kumar. Major industry bodies and Indian private sector companies which would take the lead in the SP model had been invited. The final clearance would be accorded by the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) and the meetings had been slotted.
Towards a unique digital South Asian identity
Executed properly, Aadhaar could become a central pillar of India’s ‘neighbourhood first’ policy
•The enthusiasm with which government agencies and businesses have embraced Aadhaar should prompt India’s foreign policy planners to deploy it abroad. Executed properly, Aadhaar could become a central pillar of India’s “neighbourhood first” policy, culminating in the creation of a unique digital South Asian identity. A single, region-wide platform to authenticate residents of South Asia could integrate its markets, bring communities closer and allow governments to offer a wider range of governance services. None of this is to ignore the steps that India’s Unique Identification Authority must take to secure its own Aadhaar ecosystem. But the demand for identity-driven governance in South Asia is indisputable, and Aadhaar could be Indian foreign policy’s biggest asset to promote economic and political convergence in the region.
•Already, South Asian economies are in varying stages of conceiving or implementing their own “national identity” schemes. Pakistan has the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA), that for two decades has collected biometric information. NADRA, however, has seen limited success: at last count, it had issued only 3.8 lakh ID cards to Pakistanis, in comparison to Aadhaar’s one billion-plus enrolments. In 2013, NADRA even won an international contract to create Sri Lanka’s digital national identity scheme, but that project appears to have stalled. Nepal, meanwhile, intends to roll out biometrics-driven “national ID cards” to its citizens soon. The Election Commission in Bangladesh began issuing such cards last year.
Exporting Aadhaar
•South Asian governments, long content to gather data through traditional means such as censuses, are struggling to capture dynamic trends in their population. Current databases shine no light on urban mobility, data consumption patterns, or quality of life, because these are metrics that need integrated data sets and powerful analytical tools. To capture “multi-dimensional” data, India’s neighbours have moved towards digital identity schemes. The need for unique IDs is also acute because post-conflict societies in South Asia have not fully rehabilitated excluded minorities or former combatants. In comparison to politically fraught changes — for instance, the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution for the devolution of powers, or federalist reforms in Nepal — digital identity schemes are easier to implement, can strengthen local governments and support the financial inclusion of marginalised sections.
•Beyond collecting biometric data, however, South Asian governments have not been able to create digital ID-enabled applications. This is what Aadhaar has mastered, making it a very valuable foreign policy export. Its open application programming interface (API) layers — known as “India Stack” — set Aadhaar apart from other biometric ID programmes. India Stack APIs, which include the Unified Payment Interface (UPI) and Aadhaar e-KYC, allow applications to be built atop them (for example, the Bharat Interface for Money or BHIM app) and enable identity-driven transactions. Such platforms will be invaluable to an economy working to integrate its communities. Take the return of military-occupied land in Sri Lanka’s Northern Province to the Tamils, an exercise that has become a political and logistical nightmare for Colombo. A digital identity-based scheme will not only authenticate the legitimate recipients of land, but also simplify future transactions for sale, leasing or commercial use. In Bangladesh, digital IDs could track loans made by multiple microfinance institutions to the same borrower and help check rural debt.
Strategic benefits
•India too stands to benefit by exporting the Aadhaar architecture. The digital networks for much of South Asia are likely to be supplied by Chinese companies over the next decade. Telecom pipes and towers built by China will carry the Internet to the user, but innovation in Asia’s digital economies will happen at the top — the “app layer”. Aadhaar-like platforms catalyse innovation by tailoring Big Data for governments and businesses alike. The political and economic leverage India will accrue as a result of enabling such entrepreneurship will surpass fixed investments by China. There is another strategic reason for India to export the Aadhaar platform. Once a critical mass of Aadhaar-enabled applications has been created, interoperability standards for the digital ecosystem will be determined by the Unique ID programme. App developers, handheld manufacturers, and even Internet Service Providers will have to work around Aadhaar’s encryption standards and data protection guidelines. Such a scenario will be India’s best response to concerns that China will pump its infrastructure, and — in the words of Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar — “hard wire” the norms of governance in the region.
•The same concerns of surveillance and privacy that animate the Aadhaar debate in India would no doubt be reflected in South Asian societies. Perhaps more sharply, given the propensity of some governments in the neighbourhood to target minority communities. They can learn from India’s mistakes. South Asian countries that have not digitised their public databases fully can create secure ones to link to unique ID programmes. A national ID programme would also be a trigger for them to enact strong data protection laws.
•Aadhaar is a constitutional technology that can build whole new information and communication technology ecosystems. New Delhi should appreciate its foreign policy value and integrate the project into its neighbourhood agenda.
Being humane
A law against torture should enable ratification of the Convention barring custodial excesses
•Two decades after signing the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, India is yet to ratify it. There can be little justification for such a prolonged delay in passing legislation to give effect to the convention. In recent times there is a fresh note of urgency attached to the need for early ratification, as the country has pending requests for the extradition of its nationals from other countries. For, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, the absence of a stand-alone law prohibiting torture may prevent many countries from agreeing to India’s extradition requests. Such a law may be in the national interest, the Chief Justice of India observed during the course of a hearing on a public interest petition seeking the enactment of an anti-torture law in accordance with the country’s commitment. The court also noted that India was subjected to close questioning during the Universal Periodic Review of its human rights obligations at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. It cannot be forgotten that an extradition request relating to Purulia arms drop case suspect Kim Davy failed owing to the apprehension that he may be ill-treated in India. In an era of increasing international cooperation on criminal matters, India will be better served if it is seen as adhering to international treaties, especially its obligations under the Convention Against Torture, which it signed in 1997.
•There may be some doubt whether India needs a fresh law to prevent and punish torture. Provisions relating to causing hurt or grievous hurt, especially with a view to extracting a confession, criminal intimidation and wrongful confinement already exist in the Indian Penal Code. However, the idea of a stand-alone law ought to be ultimately seen as a more tangible way of expressing commitment to eliminating torture. A concrete step towards enacting a law was made when the Prevention of Torture Bill, 2010, was passed by the Lok Sabha in 2010, but it was referred to a Select Committee in the Rajya Sabha. In its report submitted in the same year, the committee recommended exhaustive amendments to the Bill to make it consistent with the language and intent of the Convention. Thereafter the Bill lapsed. The government now says it has referred the matter to the Law Commission for an authoritative view. Given the pervasive nature of custodial violence and its complex policing requirements, the present legislative and administrative framework is obviously inadequate to prevent torture in a country of India’s size. It is imperative that a strong law that criminalises torture, imposes stringent punishment for it and contains liberal provisions for those suffering torture to complain against their perpetrators, prosecute them and be compensated and rehabilitated, is passed at the earliest.
Centre to raise with U.S. non-tariff barriers
‘Curbs affecting exports of goods made in India’
•India is planning to take up with the Trump administration the “barriers” imposed by the U.S., which are hurting Indian goods exports to that country in sectors including agriculture, pharmaceuticals and other industrial products.
•The U.S. “non-tariff/Sanitary & Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) barriers” include those imposed under laws concerning bio-terrorism, child-labour, national security, ‘Buy America’ norms preferring U.S.-made items and American suppliers in U.S. Government purchases, registration fee hikes (in sectors such as pharma), food safety as well as animal and plant health regulations, according to the Indian Commerce Ministry.
•India will raise this issue soon after the new U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) takes charge, official sources said. They said this issue would also be on the agenda of the next India-U.S. Trade Policy Forum (TPF) — the main bilateral platform for discussing and resolving trade and investment issues. The date for the next TPF meeting will be fixed after the new USTR assumes office.
Child labour
•According to the Indian Commerce Ministry, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has “arbitrarily” listed 23 items produced in India on the ‘List of Goods Produced by Child Labour or Forced Labour’ — which is in effect a ban on their import.
•The Ministry said Indian industry is worried as the reports that the DOL relies upon are “not always accurate.”
•The Ministry has also referred to the U.S. Government measures envisaged within an initiative to counter potential terrorist threats to the international maritime container trade system.
•This included X-ray scanning of containers exported to U.S., a measure, the ministry said would cause additional costs for Indian exporters across sectors. In addition, the Ministry has cited a law (the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 of the U.S.) allowing American manufacturers to petition for curbing imports from third nations on national security grounds without providing proof from industry.
•This is a major Non-Tariff Barrier (NTB) of the U.S. affecting Indian exports across sectors as the law — allowing invocation of ‘national security exceptions’ without having to apply any detailed criteria — in effect restricts foreign competition, the Ministry added.
Pharma exports
•Indian pharmaceutical exports to the U.S. are hit by the increase in registration fees, approval delays and low approval rates for registrations mandatory for sale of all new drugs in the U.S.
•Also, ayurveda and traditional Indian medicines are hit by the U.S. requirement of clinical trials while the practice of traditional Indian medicine systems such as Siddha and Unani are not allowed by the U.S. Federal Government.
•On market access barriers for Indian rice, the ministry said until the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency registers, approves and fixes a tolerance level for certain pesticide residues, Indian Basmati Rice exports will be hurt owing to import alerts due to the presence of such pesticide residues.
•The Ministry has also opposed the U.S. requirement of irradiation treatment and inspection of mangoes prior to shipping from India. The Ministry said this is a time-consuming and costly certification process hurting the competitiveness of Indian mangoes in the U.S. market. Indian grapes, litchis, pomegranates, honey, marine and meat products are also impacted by various U.S. “NTBs”. Besides, the U.S. has imposed countervailing duties on Indian exports, including those by steel and paper industries.
‘Decision on NPAs still lies with banks’
However, RBI scrutiny and committee advisories will help, says Ministry official
•Banks would still be responsible for taking commercial decisions on non-performing assets weighing down their balance-sheets, including possible haircuts, but scrutiny from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and advisories from oversight committees on the processes they adopt should comfort bankers, a top Finance Ministry official said on Monday.
•The Centre felt the need to empower the RBI to direct banks to take more effective action for unwinding bad loan accounts as NPA resolution efforts failed even in cases where lenders reached an agreement, the official said.
•As much as 70% of non-performing assets in the banking system stem from accounts where multiple banks have lent to a borrower, as a consortium or individually, said Anjuly Chhib Duggal, secretary in the department of financial services under the finance ministry. All such bad loan cases above Rs. 100 crore are to be taken up by a joint lenders’ forum (JLF) as per norms.
New JLF norms
•As per the new norms for JLFs notified by the RBI, just 60% of lenders by value of the loan have to reach a consensus on the course of action to be adopted for an NPA compared with a 75% consensus requirement earlier. The rest of the lenders are required to follow suit in such cases.
•“If 60% of the bankers come to the conclusion that due process has been followed, and now it is time to take action, the decision on the haircut is implicit in that decision. RBI is coming into the process but the commercial decision is still taken by the banks,” Ms. Duggal said.
•Stressing that an ‘overemphasis on the haircuts’ banks might take in the process can create a scare for professionals who these decisions, Ms. Duggal said “it takes a certain amount of courage to do it and the only protection is you did it transparently, recording the decisions to explain ten years down the line.”
•The oversight committees for JLFs, which the RBI has been enabled to constitute, could look into the processes adopted by lenders to arrive at a corrective action plan for specific NPA cases. But their recommendations would be advisory, she said.
•“If the committee says the process is not followed, then bankers should go back and look at it in their own interest, (but) it’s an advisory. This entire system is to supplement the bankers in the process.”
•“If so many people have together taken a decision, it is very difficult for anyone to game the system. The numbers offer protection… and opening up this process to the OC and the RBI… that is where the comfort comes,” Ms. Duggal said.
•“What happened was that even though loans had been resolved through JLF and a corrective action plan worked out, it could not be effectively resolved,” she said, citing delays in paperwork by individual banks.
•“There has been a delay in coming back – if a decision has been taken to restructure a loan or sell an asset to an asset reconstruction company, it applies for a particular point of time. If the timeline passes, the decision has to be renegotiated all over again,” she said.
