📰 Post-Doklam, India asserts itself in China’s backyard
Highlights convergence with Quad nations
•Displaying convergence of interests with the new quadrilateral grouping with U.S., Japan and Australia, India on Tuesday reached out to China’s backyard, addressing an array of issues ranging from the tension in the Korean peninsula to freedom of navigation and sought a crackdown on chemical weapons during the ASEAN and the East Asia summits. A high-level Indian official told The Hindu that New Delhi has emerged as a more dependable partner for South-East Asia following the Doklam faceoff with China, and indicated that the South-East Asian countries expect New Delhi to be assertive with Beijing. “The Doklam standoff was keenly observed by the countries in the SouthEast Asian region that have been absorbing the impact of China’s assertiveness. But the outcome of the Doklam crisis has shown that India has reached a stage where it can be a resilient strategic and defence partner for them,” said the official.
•The explanation of India’s post-Doklam international image acquires significance in view of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s one-on-one meeting with Premier Li Keqiang that was held on the sidelines of the East Asia Summit on Tuesday.
•Following the meeting the MEA spokesperson took to social media to announce that the meeting signified, “two neighbours in deep conversation.”
•Elaborating on the counter-China angle, the high-level official said the Southeast Asian region had been facing uncertainties following the exit of President Barack Obama as he took visible interest in the region.
•However, the latest visits by the leaders of the quadrilateral countries, including by the new U.S. Presdient Donald Trump have once again assured support to these countries as they face China’s commercial and military domination.
•In this context, he said the fundamental change in India’s foreign affairs is in its embrace of the big ticket issues of East Asia like the North Korean nuclear crisis as well.
•“Prime Minister Narendra Modi shared concerns of DPRK’s pursuit of missiles and nuclear weapons and called for complete verification and irreversible denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. He also said that North Korea’s proliferation links must be investigated and the parties who have supported these unlawful programmes must be made accountable,” Preeti Saran, Secretary in charge of eastern ties in the Ministry of External Affairs said at a media briefing explaining India’s position.
•The issue of North Korea’s has been mentioned in the press statement of the United States following first official level discussion of the ‘Quad’ held on 12 November here.
•The anonymous Indian official said that taking up of North Korean threats was part of a new Indian set of concerns that also covers major global issues like terrorism by the Islamic State and its capability to inflict mass casualties, and tensions in the South China Sea that concern the world as well as India.
•“The North Korean nuclear missiles are not just problematic for the U.S., but for the entire world, including us, as Pyongyang’s missiles are capable of hitting targets in different parts of the world,” said the diplomat.
•The situation in the South China Sea also featured in the statement of Prime Minister Modi in the ASEAN who asked for upholding of the ‘rules based regional security architecture’, an expression often described to refer to China’s opposition to adhere to the UN laws of the seas (UNCLOS).
•The official source elaborated that India remains concerned about China’s manmade structures in the South China Sea that are likely to create navigational problems and international friction and said, “As of now there is a jockeying for power between the US and China that is going on in South China Sea but in future we anticipate that identification (of vessels or aircraft) can be raised by the other (Chinese) side,” he said.
•India also pushed for a total ban on chemical weapons in the region and for an end to terrorist financing. “The biggest issue facing counter-terror efforts has been the inability of powerful countries to stop flow of funds to the terror groups,” said the diplomat elaborating that the agreements on terror financing, chemical weapons and de-radicalisation adopted at the East Asia Summit will help the region cope with the threat of terrorism effectively in future.
📰 ASEAN: India, U.S. deepen engagement
In Manila, Modi held ‘very expansive’ talks with Trump and reviewed the strategic landscape in Asia
•Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday left for home after concluding his three-day visit to the Philippines where he attended the ASEAN-India and East Asia summits besides holding a series of bilateral meetings with a number of leaders including U.S. President Donald Trump.
•“After a series of productive bilateral and multilateral engagements in Manila, PM @narendramodi heads for home,” Ministry of External Affairs spokesman Raveesh Kumar tweeted.
United approach
•On the sidelines of the summits, Mr. Modi held “very expansive” talks with Mr. Trump during which the two leaders carried out a “broad review” of the strategic landscape in Asia, signalling deeper cooperation by the two countries in dealing with sensitive security issues confronting the region.
•It is learnt that the broader security architecture in the Indo-Pacific region in the backdrop of China’s increasing military presence in South China Sea figured in their talks apart from a host of other regional and global issues including terrorism emanating from Pakistan, North Korea’s missile tests, situation in Afghanistan and also the Gulf region.
•Mr. Modi also held wide-ranging talks with Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, covering an entire gamut of bilateral relationship. After their talks, the two countries inked four pacts providing for cooperation in a number of areas, including defence and security.
•He held wide-ranging talks with his Japanese counterpart, Shinzo Abe, with a focus on ramping up the strategic partnership between the two Asian giants.
Many bilateral meets
•Mr. Modi held bilateral meetings with his Australian counterpart Malcolm Turnbull, Vietnamese Premier Nguyen Xuan Phuc, Sultan of Brunei Hassanal Bolkiah and New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and discussed ways to further ramp up cooperation in various key areas like trade and investment.
📰 SC dismisses petition for SIT probe in bribery case
Terms conduct of petitioners ‘unethical and unwarranted’
•The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by advocate Kamini Jaiswal seeking a Special Investigation Team probe in the medical college bribery case as an effort to “create ripples” within the apex court by throwing scandalous allegations at Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.
•Noting that the identical petitions filed by Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) and Ms. Jaiswal “seriously jeopardised the independence of the judiciary,” the three-judge Bench led by Justice R.K. Agrawal held that the conduct of the petitioners in the past week were both “unethical and unwarranted” and amounted to forum-hunting.
•Justice Arun Mishra, after reading out excerpts from the judgment, orally informed the courtroom that no contempt action was contemplated against Ms. Jaiswal and her friends.
‘Let us unite’
•“Let us unite and work for the welfare of the great institution,” Justice Mishra spoke for the Bench, which also included Justice A.M. Khanwilkar. “Let good sense prevail over the legal fraternity and amends be made as a lot of uncalled-for damage has been made to the great institution in which the public repose their faith,” the judgment said.
•After a series of high-voltage hearings, one of them before a Constitution Bench on Friday, Justice Mishra said matter should not be aggravated any more.
•“We have observed in the judgment that we are not above the law. However high, we are not above the law. But everything should be as process,” Justice Mishra orally observed.
•The court indicated that it was leaning in favour of bringing a quietus to the issue, saying goodwill should prevail.
•“We still expect and hope the matter will stop at this,” Justice Mishra said.
•The 38-page judgment drew largely from past verdicts of the Supreme Court dealing with “scandalous allegations” against judges.
•Though not directly accusing Ms. Jaiswal, Mr. Prashant Bhushan and others involved in the two petitions of contempt of court, the judgment makes repeated references to how past decisions had dealt with unfounded allegations against judges with an iron hand.
•For one, the judgment said it was not left to the “whim of the litigant” to tell the CJI not to hear a case. It observed that “this court has laid down that when imputations are made against the Chief Justice, it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice to constitute the Benches and assign judicial business, and it would not hinge on the whim of the litigant.”
•In fact, an allegation that the Chief Justice cannot constitute Benches, where imputations were made against him, only aggravates the contempt, the judgment said.
•Judges are not responsible for “corridor” rumours. Recusal of a judge cannot be sought in such instances on the ground of conflict of interest.
•“No judge can be held responsible for what may [happen] or has happened in the corridors, or ‘who purports to sell whom.’”
•It is entirely the judge’s prerogative to take cognisance under the Contempt of Court Act and punish a “person who is unscrupulously trying to influence the decision-making or indulging in malpractices,” the judgment said.
•The filing of successive petitions by CJAR and Ms. Jaiswal and the prayer to keep the CJI from hearing these cases were clear attempts at forum-hunting, it held. In this context, the verdict again referred to a past judgment where contempt was drawn against an advocate for “mudslinging” at the Supreme Court in a “careless manner” through “meaningless and contradictory pleadings, clumsy allegations.”
•It reasoned that Chief Justice Misra’s Bench had decided the medical college case in question on September 18 before the FIR was registered on September 19. If so, the case was not pending before the CJI Bench.
•The judgment referred to an unsuccessful effort made by Ms. Jaiswal’s lawyers that Justice Khanwilkar should recuse from the three-judge Bench as he was part of the CJI Bench which decided the medical college case on September 18.
📰 Bill banning superstitious practices tabled
It proposes to ban ‘made snana’, besides 15 other practices
•The much-delayed and hotly debated Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Bill, 2017, popularly known as the ‘Anti-Superstition Bill’, was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday.
•Among other things, it seeks to ban the controversial ‘made snana’ ritual (where devotees roll over plantain leaves that have leftover food) in public/religious places. The Bill, however, does not envisage regulations for astrology or vaastu practices. It primarily aims to protect people against evil and sinister practices and combat inhuman and sinister practices propagated/performed in the name of “supernatural” or black magic. In all, 16 practices are banned under the legislation.
•The tabling of the Bill is seen as a fulfilment of the commitment made by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah to rationalists and activists who have been fighting for a ban on superstitious practices. The Bill had also seen severe opposition, with the BJP and some Hindutva groups calling it “anti-Hindu”.
•The Bill was approved in the State Cabinet meeting held on September 27, 2017.
Dharna by BJP
•Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister T.B. Jayachandra tabled the Bill amid a dharna by the BJP members demanding the resignation of Bengaluru Development Minister K.J. George in the wake of the CBI filing an FIR against him in the Dy.SP M.K. Ganapathy suicide case.
📰 ‘Can Delhi get executive powers like other States’
•The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised a question whether the constitutional scheme on division of executive powers between the Centre and the States can be made applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi.
•A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, which is hearing pleas on who enjoys supremacy in governing the national capital, put the query after noting the submission of senior advocate Indira Jaising that the executive powers of Delhi should be ascertained in the light of the constitutional scheme providing a clear division of powers between the States and the Centre.
‘Two captains of a ship’
•Ms. Jaising, appearing for the AAP government, said having “two captains of a ship” would lead to chaos.
•“How are these provisions applicable in the case of Union Territory of Delhi,” the bench, also comprising Justices A. K. Sikri, A. M. Khanwilkar, D. Y. Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, asked.
•“Everything boils down to day-to-day administration. How can the Centre say that you (Delhi government) cannot have the executive power. I can understand this position on legislative powers,” Ms. Jaising said.
•She said the court should not be guided by the nomenclature of Delhi as a Union Territory while interpreting Article 239AA and the executive powers of the Delhi government and there should be no “blurring of responsibilities” between the State and the Centre.
📰 Rasogolla hits sweet spot, gets GI tag
Stone sculptures of Mamallapuram in Tamil Nadu also get the recognition
•The Geographical Indication (GI) Registry and Intellectual Property India on Tuesday presented the Geographical Indication Tag status to Banglar Rasogolla of West Bengal and Mamallapuram stone sculptures of Tamil Nadu. West Bengal was involved in a lengthy battle with Odisha, which too had claimed Rasogolla as its invention.
•The Directorate of Food Processing Industry of West Bengal had applied (number 533) on September 8, 2015 seeking the GI status for Banglar Rasogolla. After due procedure (examination, objections, hearing, opposition and appeal), the same was published in the GI Journal No 99 on July 14, 2017. The GI tag was finally conferred on Tuesday.
Odisha’s claim
•While West Bengal believes that the Rasogolla was invented in Calcutta by confectioner Nabin Chandra Das, Odisha says it was invented in the holy city of Puri in the 13th century. West Bengal in its application had provided proof of origin — historical records dating back to 1896.
•According to one of the documents submitted by West Bengal citing historical evidence, Rasogollas invented in the Nadia district of West Bengal are 60 years old (lower end time frame). Haradhan, a confectioner of village Phulia is named as the inventor. West Bengal has given half-a-dozen historical evidences to back its claim.
•Similarly, the Tamil Nadu Handicrafts Development Corporation had applied (number 426) on May 31, 2013 seeking the GI tag status for Mamallapuram stone sculptures. After compliance to procedures, it was also published in the same journal.
•Tamil Nadu in its application stated that the sculptures from Mamallapuram were known to be carved in stone with characteristics of intricate designing chiselled finely, keeping with the spirit of the surrounding Pallava art and architecture.
•The description includes cave architecture, rock architecture, structural temples, open sculptures, relief sculptures and painting/portrait sculptures.
📰 Labelling versus outcomes: on Swachh Bharat Mission
Studies on the Swachh Bharat Mission don’t confirm the government’s claims
•On October 2, 2017, the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) completed its third year. Over ₹60,000 crore has been spent on the programme, but despite its scope and importance, there is very little objective evidence about its performance
•So far the numbers that have been widely cited by the government are from its own administrative data and the Swachh Survekshan Gramin 2017, conducted by the Quality Council of India (QCI), a body set up jointly by the Government of India and industry. Both the sources, i.e. QCI’s survey and the SBM website, portray a similar picture. At the time when the survey was conducted between May and June 2017, Swachh Survekshan claimed 62.45% India-wide latrine coverage, which was similar to the SBM’s figure of 63.73%. Moreover, the QCI survey also claimed that 91.29% of those with access to a toilet use it.
•If true, these numbers would mean better public health outcomes in India — a very desirable outcome. However, one can debate their accuracy. Researchers who study sanitation agree that the questionnaire is structured to show the appearance of latrine use. In fact, research shows that surveys which pose a balanced question about open defecation or latrine use for each person in a household are able to document more open defecation than survey questions that group household members by demographic categories.
Off the mark
•Inaccurate estimate of latrine use is not the only problem the SBM faces; a variety of implementation challenges exist as well. The pressure of an approaching deadline of making India open defecation free (ODF) is one.
•During my recent visit to a few villages in Uttar Pradesh to study the programme, a village pradhan described the pressure of building latrines: “Last year I was given the target of building 27 latrines, which I have got constructed, and now the target for this year is to build 104. After these are constructed, my village will be declared open defecation free.” He did not mention that being declared ODF would depend on anyone using the constructed latrines. Moreover, he said that the criterion would include decrepit and unused structures constructed under Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan, the United Progressive Alliance government’s latrine building programme. SBM counts these as functional latrines, as the baseline data in 2012 did. In fact, pictures of such defunct latrines can be seen on the SBM website categorised as “uploaded”, “approved” and “counted”.
•The pradhan’s experience is in line with findings by sanitation researchers in independent studies. In a report called “Quality and Sustainability of Toilets” (WaterAid, 2017), the authors report that in the eight States where the study was conducted, less than a quarter of households said that it was their own initiative to build the toilet. This is contrary to the government’s claim that SBM is a people’s movement.
•In another study, “Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) Immersive Research,” conducted by Praxis, the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), and WaterAid, researchers lived with families in each of the eight ODF villages selected. They aimed to explore behavioural change best practices in rural districts that have been declared ODF in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.
•Although each of these villages had been declared ODF and the authorities verified them to be ODF, the ‘Immersive’ study found that of the eight verified ODF villages, only one was actually ODF, one was close to being ODF, and the rest had remarks such as “some OD observed,” “OD areas identified,” and “OD prevalent.” The two “ODF verified villages” in Uttar Pradesh had 37% and 74%, respectively, of households without a toilet in their house. An “ODF verified” village in Rajasthan had a toilet coverage of just 16%.
•False ODF claims were not the only disconcerting observations that the researchers made. In all the villages, the study found coercive measures having been used to promote the SBM. The authors say: “Panchayats have been making threats, though seldom imposed, with a variety of sanctions and punishments, ranging from denial of all State welfare schemes (for instance withdrawal of ration cards) to imposing of fines… and arrest and prosecution under various sections of [the] Indian Penal Code.”
•Unfortunately, we do not have credible, representative country-wide estimates of latrine use in India. On one hand, government data and the Swachh Survekshan show the programme to be achieving what it is meant to achieve. But, independent, rapid studies by sanitation researchers and anecdotal stories present a less rosy picture. The programe seems to be running on a check mark-based approach, and between all this, widespread open defecation in India continues to kill babies, and stunts those who survive.
📰 A question of probity
Urgent reform is required to restore the moral authority of the Supreme Court
•On November 10, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court led by the Chief Justice of India, in a case concerning corruption arising out of certain judicial proceedings, declared that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster with the sole prerogative to determine which Bench of judges gets to hear which cases. That the Chief Justice, as the head of the judiciary, determines the roster is a platitude that pales in public significance to the critical role of the Chief Justice as the embodiment of moral authority of the entire judicial system. This moral authority suffered a fatal blow when the Chief Justice chose to reassert his own administrative powers in the face of allegations concerning the possible lack of probity of senior public functionaries. The situation demanded statesmanship — unfortunately the Court engaged in whataboutery, raising the spectre of contempt of court, only to drop it finally.
A criminal conspiracy
•The genesis of this episode lies in the filing of petitions by Prasad Education Trust before the Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court. The trust operated a medical college whose permission to run certain courses had been declined. Justices Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy, P.C. Pant, A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud heard the parties and passed several orders in the Supreme Court; Justices Narayan Shukla and Virendra Kumar-II passed an interim order in Allahabad High Court.
•A simultaneous investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) indicated a possible criminal conspiracy to ensure a favourable judicial order in this matter. According to its FIR, two persons managing the affairs of the trust, approached a retired judge of Allahabad and Odisha High Courts, Justice I.M. Quddusi, through Sudhir Giri of the Venkateshwara Medical College (part of Venkateshwara University, in whose case another judgment had been passed by Justice Dipak Misra in the Supreme Court). Quddusi recommended the filing of a petition before the Allahabad High Court, in which partial relief was granted.
•Subsequently, when the matter again reached the Supreme Court, the FIR reveals that Quddusi and his associates assured the trust of getting the matter “settled” in the Supreme Court through “their contacts” and engaged Biswanath Agrawala, a resident of Bhubaneswar. Agrawala claimed “very close contact with senior relevant public functionaries” and demanded significant gratification for settling the case. Quddusi, Agrawala and four associates have now been arrested for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.
•Since the FIR indicated an attempt to fix a judicial proceeding, the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court requesting that a Special Investigation Team under a retired Chief Justice of India be set up. This request was made since it was apprehended that leaving the investigation to the CBI might mean allowing the government to influence judges who would be brought under investigation.
•The merits of such a request are a distinct matter. However, propriety would plausibly demand that since the FIR pertained to a case where Justice Misra had been the presiding judge, as Chief Justice of India, he would not perform his default role of allocating Benches for determination of this case or exercise his prerogative of hearing the case himself. Doing so would imply that the Chief Justice would not be “like Caesar’s wife”, the puritanical standard of propriety the Court expects of public servants. The same principle would apply to any judge in the Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court who had earlier participated in the proceedings. Recusal would not be an admission of complicity; instead it would be an affirmation of the principle that justice not only be done but be seen to be done.
Diminishing propriety
•Unfortunately, by allocating the matter to a Division Bench, the Chief Justice gave this principle a go-by. It is moot whether the Bench entrusted by the Chief Justice would ensure justice or not — the critical point is that such a Bench chosen by the Chief Justice was congenitally defective. This impropriety set off a chain of improper actions — filing of a second petition in the same matter, hearing of the second petition by Justice J. Chelameswar, the second-most senior judge of the Supreme Court, and an order by his Bench that the matter should be heard by five senior-most judges of the Court.
•To be certain, devoid of context, each of these actions is improper. But the impropriety in these actions is technical and not substantive. That it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice alone to list matters and constitute Benches is a convention based on long practice. However, when doing so would cast a shadow of doubt on the process of justice delivery itself, it is not only proper but also necessary that this task is performed by another judge. The Court cannot stand on formality and sacrifice substantive justice for a vacuous conception of prerogative power.
•This episode of plausible administrative impropriety was unfortunately compounded by the Chief Justice constituting a five-judge Bench, including himself, to hear the matter on the judicial side. A resounding reiteration of the Chief Justice’s own powers to determine the roster, annulling the order of Justice Chelameswar and hearing supportive bystanders in the Court, were signs of a Court ignoring the need for justice to be seen to be done. Again, whether the right decision was reached or not is moot — a decision was reached in which the Chief Justice was unarguably judge in his own cause. That itself suffices to make this judgment bad in law.
Glasnost and perestroika
•To blame one individual or another, or attribute motives for this episode would be to miss the wood for the trees. Instead, there are two structural issues of consequence to anyone who cares about judicial integrity. First, the cardinal principle that the Chief Justice of India is the master of the roster must be re-examined. Although there can scarcely be any argument against it as a tenet of judicial discipline, it would be naive to consider it an absolute principle of justice delivery.
•In the U.K., Lord Chancellors had, for long, used the prerogative of Bench selection to serve partisan ends. As scholar Diana Woodhouse writes, Lord Halsbury wanted the power of trade unions reduced and selected Benches accordingly; Lord Hailsham chose Benches to constrict his colleague Lord Atkin’s ability to progressively interpret the law and Lord Loreburn’s cherry-picking of judges to reach favourable conclusions is well-known. The history of such abuse of prerogative led the U.K. to statutorily establish two leadership positions in the new Supreme Court — that of the President and the Deputy President, together with a professional registry and a Chief Executive. The unchecked power of the Chief Justice of India to constitute Benches must be similarly circumscribed. Doing so does not amount to mistrusting the Chief Justice, but rather being cognisant of changing demands of accountability.
•Second, much has been said of the indiscipline demonstrated by Justice Chelameswar’s Bench in listing a case and determining the Bench that hears it. Discipline lies at the heart of judicial functioning — its complex rules on filing, unwritten conventions of seniority, expected decorum in courtroom seating are all critical components to ensure institutional discipline. But a single-minded reiteration of such formal norms appear perverse when confronted with a case where the personal probity of individuals in the judiciary is in doubt. If only to conclusively dispel such doubt, an independent investigation was warranted. This might well have been the logical conclusion of the technically improper order passed by Justice Chelameswar’s Bench listing the matter before the five senior-most judges.
•For several senior members of the Bar to focus solely on this apparent impropriety while remaining blind to graver improprieties elsewhere and larger questions of probity is symptomatic of a legal fraternity that steadfastly refuses to practice the values it preaches to others. Closing ranks and taking refuge in hidebound norms of propriety is like playing the proverbial fiddle, while pretending that public confidence in the judiciary is a gift that will keep on giving.
•Justice Kurian Joseph of the Supreme Court wrote in respect of judicial appointments that a ‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’ is required if the system is to regain public confidence. If the moral authority of the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court is to be restored, something similar is needed urgently. Otherwise the Supreme Court will soon be a far cry from the institution we all revere. Some might say, it already is.
📰 The aim is pollution control, not theatre: Sunita Narain
If we oppose every solution to the problem of air pollution, how will we ever breathe clean air, asks the environmentalist
•Environmentalist Sunita Narain has been fighting for clean air for decades. The Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment, with which she has been associated and now serves as director general, led the shift to compressed natural gas in Delhi, to reduce air pollution. Ms. Narain is on the statutory body set up under the Environment Protection Act as well as the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA), a Supreme Court-appointed panel to monitor pollution in the Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR). Excerpts from an interview on the magnitude of the problem and the way forward:
Every breath we are inhaling at the moment is toxic. How have we reached this point?
•Nobody is really serious about pollution is all I can say. It’s not sudden. In fact, pollution last year was worse than it is this year. What we don’t realise is that we aren’t taking adequate steps to bring down pollution. Whatever we are doing is too little, too late.
•The kind of pollution that we are seeing now is in the entire region — it’s not just Delhi; Patna is more polluted. Anywhere you start placing pollution monitoring equipment, you realise that the air you breathe is toxic.
•And please don’t underestimate the health impact of this. This is really serious. It’s time we realised that if we don’t get serious about tackling air pollution, we will have such episodes throughout winter. Also be clear that this is not just about Punjab and Haryana and the burning of crops. What we saw this time was a weather pattern which basically, they are saying, brought winds from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This brought a lot of dust, huge wind storms which collided with the wind system coming from the east which was bringing moisture. And that is deadly because the moisture locks in the dust and becomes a cloud. At the same time there was no wind at the ground level. So when you and I felt that we were suffocating, that is what it was. Delhi is equally to blame. The cars in Delhi today are choking us.
Are Punjab and Haryana to be blamed?
•This time, Punjab and Haryana also contributed because of crop burning. But remember, in the months to come, when winter is severe, even when this factor (crop burning) goes, we will still have pollution. Last year, the peak came in December and January.
•I don’t want to get into this great game of the Delhi government — every time there is this chaos they say, ‘What about Punjab? Punjab did it!’ I think it’s time we grew up and I would really urge our politicians to grow up because otherwise they are taking away our lives and the lives of our children.
Are the governments doing too little, too late? With every episode of severe air pollution, there is a mad rush to enforce urgent but temporary measures.
•Absolutely! Please understand that the odd-even (car scheme) and the shutting of schools are all emergency actions. Last year, when we had a crisis like this in November, we had gone to court and said that there are two ways in which governments all over the world deal with this. One is that they have an emergency response, which is that when things are so bad they ask, ‘what do we do?’ Last year, nobody knew what to do; there was a sort of helplessness. And two, what we said (to the court) was that emergency plans are not substitutes for long-term measures. We need both because till you have your long-term measures kicking in, we must have a response.
•So the court asked the Environment Ministry to come up with what is now called the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP). It’s now in force and we gave a report to the court on Monday on the implementation of the GRAP: what happened and what we learnt.
•One of the big things we learnt was that yes, it was important to have the GRAP because at least the emergency plans could kick in other than the odd and even scheme which became a political football between the AAP (Aam Aadmi Party) and the NGT (National Green Tribunal). The other measures are being enforced across the NCR, not just Delhi.
•So yes, there has been a response to the emergency. And according to IIT-M (Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology), Pune, this response plan has reduced pollution levels by about 15% (compared) to what it would have been over the weekend. So please realise that the kind of critical pollution levels that we see today would have been 20% higher if we hadn’t taken this emergency response. What we said to the court on Monday is that we need to improve this.
•There are four problems that we have noticed. One, the forecasting data were very poor. On November 6, we had no indication of the kind of cloud and the weather pattern that would change. It was on 7th, when pollution spiked, that we were told that pollution levels are high. We immediately directed action. But then it takes time for governments to gear up and take action, which, to their credit, they did. By 8th, orders had been passed and by the next day everything was enforced. But the fact is that we needed data earlier, so we are now talking to the Indian Meteorological Department to say that we have to integrate weather forecast with pollution monitoring.
•The second thing that we have told the court is that we need a better system and protocol in place to inform people about spiked pollution levels.
•Third, we are saying this plan is weak because a comprehensive plan hasn’t been put in place. For instance, one of the big issues of GRAP is that when pollution spikes — say, in Paris — a protocol is put in place and you ramp up public transport. Paris makes public transport free. Or you intensify public transport, increase car parking costs, and take the pressure off cars. And if it doesn’t sort out, the next stage is the odd and even scheme.
Do we have the infrastructure to bring in long-term and emergency measures to ensure that we don’t find ourselves in this state again?
•In our case we have no public transport. Because for four years you have done nothing about it besides blaming and passing the buck. Today what we have is a governance crisis. You remain in an emergency mode if you don’t deal with this crisis.
•The facts of this crisis today are scary. We are in severe-plus (air quality) today, but we are in severe plus when every action in the book has been directed — construction is banned, industries are banned, thermal plants have been shut down, brick kilns have been banned, generator sets have been banned, the so-called public transport system has been intensified... The only thing we haven’t been able to do is to take the cars off the road. And despite all this, we are in severe-plus mode. It just tells you the scale of the problem and the scale of the intervention that is needed.
•My problem today is that everyone is outraged but nobody backs a solution. Every time you propose a solution, somebody contests it and then getting that solution implemented takes the wind out of you. My question is, if clean air is everybody’s business, then why such opposition? What about the health of the people? What about the health of our children?
What does the EPCA propose as the way forward?
•The EPCA has been given the responsibility of directing action as far as GRAP is concerned. We have directed action this time. We are not going to lift the severe-plus level unless the air quality improves for at least 48 hours. We are also going to try to improve GRAP so that it becomes more responsive and effective. We are going to be taking this up and fighting for it.
•But beyond that, we need governments to step in, we need clean fuel — gas or electricity — not just for Delhi-NCR, but for the whole of India. And we have to have public transport on a scale that you can actually get rid of your car. Today we can’t enforce any car restriction measures because we have no public transport and everybody passes the buck around.
•And then we need governance so that you don’t burn garbage, you manage your dust on the road, you make sure construction activities are limited… I mean, it’s not rocket science. But the point is, do we even have a government which is serious enough to see this through in the coming years, not just the few days when pollution is critical?
Is India displaying enough leadership at the state, national and international levels to ensure a better environment for its citizens?
•Why is the government not accountable? And why are we taking it? Because we don’t have the ability to ask hard questions, we don’t look at air pollution as a serious issue, we get up when the crisis is happening and we go to sleep when the crisis is over. That’s the problem. And that is what the politicians know… they can play with our lives.
•Everyone is complacent and people are suffering in every State. People in Haryana and Punjab are suffering as much as people in Delhi. What we have today is an assault. What we are not understanding is that this will not go away till we push back on a national scale. Not these wimpy actions... get a few buses, we will enforce a bit of a ban here and there... it will not work. Odd and even is an emergency action. In countries that brought this in, it was done as an emergency measure with no exceptions and for 24 hours.
•Governments have to understand that the aim is pollution control, not theatre. We are mute spectators to a theatre that is happening today in front of us.
Does India have a strong voice when it comes to climate change and ensuring that it is able to become an environmentally safe nation?
•India must have a real voice. To me what was most embarrassing, and my head hangs in shame, is when United Airlines declared that they will stop flying to Delhi because of the smog. My head hangs in shame knowing that my government imports all the garbage that the U.S. is exporting to us today. They are exporting pet coke (a petroleum industry byproduct) to us because they have domestic restrictions to use pet coke, because they care about their pollution. We are importing it because, as the Ministry said in court, it is a cheap fuel and there are economic interests involved. So let’s be clear. If we want to fight the climate war, we have to set our own house in order. And we can’t allow our heads to hang in shame and for us to be told that you are so polluted that we don’t even want to come to your country. I feel defeated… we just don’t seem to understand the enormity of it.
•And we must have a strong voice internationally. Our fight on climate change is to argue for justice, equitable rights over the atmosphere. To strengthen this fight, we must make sure that we can hold our head up in front of the whole world.
📰 Warm, warmer: on climate change
Rich countries must pay more for plans to limit and deal with climate change
•As the 23rd conference of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bonn shifts into high gear, developing countries including India are focussing on the imperatives of ensuring adequate financing for mitigation and adaptation. They are moving ahead with specific instruments for loss and damage they suffer due to destructive climate-linked events. India’s progress in reducing the intensity of its greenhouse gas emissions per unit of GDP by 20-25% from 2005 levels by 2020, based on the commitment made in Copenhagen in 2009, has been positive. Early studies also suggest that it is on track to achieve the national pledge under the 2015 Paris Agreement for a 33-35% cut in emissions intensity per unit of growth from the same base year by 2030, and thus heed the 2°C warming goal. Since this performance is predicated on a growth rate of just over 7%, and the parallel target for 40% share of renewable energy by that year, the national road map is clear. What is not, however, is the impact of extreme weather events such as droughts and floods that would have a bearing on economic growth. It is in this context that the rich countries must give up their rigid approach towards the demands of low and middle income countries, and come to an early resolution on the question of financing of mitigation, adaptation and compensation. Of course, India could further raise its ambition in the use of green technologies and emissions cuts, which would give it the mantle of global climate leadership.
•The climate question presents a leapfrog era for India’s development paradigm. Already, the country has chalked out an ambitious policy on renewable energy, hoping to generate 175 gigawatts of power from green sources by 2022. This has to be resolutely pursued, breaking down the barriers to wider adoption of rooftop solar energy at every level and implementing net metering systems for all categories of consumers. At the Bonn conference, a new Transport Decarbonisation Alliance has been declared. It is aimed at achieving a shift to sustainable fuels, getting cities to commit to eco-friendly mobility and delivering more walkable communities, all of which will improve the quality of urban life. This presents a good template for India, building on its existing plans to introduce electric mobility through buses first, and cars by 2030. Such measures will have a beneficial effect not just on transport choices, but on public health through pollution abatement. A national law to raise the efficiency of transport could well be the answer, which the States will readily adopt if supportive financial arrangements are built in. There is some worry that an increase in coal, oil and gas production could negate some of the gains made. The record in this sphere will naturally be evaluated against India’s Paris Agreement pledge to use a combination of incentives for clean production and levies on fuel to maintain a balance.
