📰 UAE to open new consular offices in India
Envoy says the country will invest $75 billion of its sovereign wealth fund in India over the next decade
•Boosting bilateral engagement with India, the United Arab Emirates will open several new consular centres in India and invest $75 billion of its sovereign wealth fund in the country, its envoy said on Tuesday.
•The announcement on expanding consular footprint of UAE came even as diplomatic sources confirmed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi will visit Abu Dhabi in February 2018.
•“Under the present circumstances, if people from Chandigarh, Chennai and Hyderabad want a visa to the UAE, they have to travel to either Mumbai or Delhi or Kerala. So to prevent hardship for the people, we are soon going to open our consular and visa centres in these cities,” said Dr Ahmed Albanna, ambassador of UAE told the media here. Expansion of consular services of UAE will help the Indians in the country who constitute one of the largest overseas Indian populations.
•Apart from renewed focus on diplomatic and consular contacts, the envoy said that his country stands with India on counter-terror cooperation firmed up with Mr. Modi’s visit to the UAE in August 2015. “We denounce extremism, terrorism, and work closely with other countries to counter-attack organisations and individuals that have been listed or proscribed,” he said highlighting cooperation with India on that front.
•The envoy also said that UAE has put in place a mechanism to oversee investment of $75 billion of its sovereign wealth fund into the Indian economy over the next decade.
•“$ 1 billion has already been invested in India,” said Dr Albanna, explaining that the fund will be utilised for infrastructure projects in India. The UAE sovereign wealth fund, known as Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA), has been a major issue that both sides have been trying to harness. The affirmation of continued investment followed a day after ADIA bought stakes in KKR India Financial Services Pvt Ltd, a major non-banking financial company in India.
•Tuesday’s announcements came even as diplomatic sources indicated that Mr. Modi is likely to travel to Abu Dhabi in February 2018 to attend a major summit event.
•UAE and India have held two rounds of strategic dialogue, said the envoy. Significantly, terrorism is also a criterion on which the country has been trying to corner neighbour Qatar, which is facing isolation within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) which began its summit meeting in Kuwait on Tuesday. GCC, host of more than seven million Indian workers and professionals, is a key source of foreign remittances to India, and stability of the region is in India’s interest.
•“We hope Qatar will realise its mistake and come on the right track,” said Dr. Albanna. UAE and Saudi Arabia have formed a separate security alliance away from GCC on Tuesday, hinting at an emerging division within the GCC.
📰 Supreme Court refuses to defer Ayodhya case hearing
Sunni Waqf Board sought to postpone case till 2019 polls
•The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused requests by appellant parties from the minority community to defer the hearing in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute till after July 15, 2019, that is, post the next general elections.
•On the eve of the 25th anniversary of the demolition of the 16th century Babri Masjid, a three-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, remained undeterred by submissions that every day of the Ayodhya title dispute hearing in the Supreme Court would invite serious repercussions across the country.
•The Bench, also comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer, fixed the date for final hearing on February 8, 2018. The court did not entertain, for now, a plea to refer the 13 appeals, including one filed by the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, to a five-judge Constitution Bench. The appeals are against a September 2010 judgment by a three-judge Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court for a three-way partition of the disputed site.
•The appellants Mohd. Hashim, M. Siddiq, Misbahuddeen and Farooq Ahmad, represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhawan and Dushyant Dave respectively, said the dispute was not just any other civil suit but probably the most important case in the history of India, which would “decide the future of the polity”.
•“The appeals will have My Lords decide whether this is a country where a mosque can be destroyed. This is not just another title suit. These appeals go to the very heart of our secular and democratic fabric,” Mr. Dhawan argued.
•“Government is keen to have the court hear these appeals. Don't fall into the trap,” Mr. Dave joined in.
Political agenda
•Mr. Sibal said the government was using the judiciary to realise its agenda for a Ram Mandir assured in the ruling BJP’s 2014 election manifesto. A hearing now fits the Sangh Parivar assurances to realise their promise of a temple through legal means, he said.
•He dissuaded the Supreme Court from hearing the appeals now, saying a “decision in the case will invite serious ramifications. Now is not the right time to hear it. It will have repercussions. It is already happening. Post it after July 15, 2019, when everything is over. We will not ask for an adjournment then”.
•Even as the Uttar Pradesh government said it was ready to argue and reminded the court that it had refused in the previous hearing in August to entertain any adjournments when it posted for opening statements today, Mr. Sibal protested, saying there were 19,000 documents involved in the case and it would only be fair on the part of the court to allow the lawyers more time to prepare.
•“This case will be the most important case in India's history. This will decide the future of India,” Mr. Sibal submitted.
•Justice Ashok Bhushan, on the Bench with Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, reminded Mr. Sibal that it was the appellants who had wanted an early hearing in December/January of 2017.
•“Your submissions are non-serious,” Justice Bhushan observed.
•At one point, counsels Sibal, Dhawan and Dave made as if to leave the courtroom when the Bench refused their pleas and turned to hear senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, for the deity, Ram Lalla, who offered to kick-off the hearing by making the opening statement.
•In his counter, senior advocate Harish Salve for the respondents said the court need not be bothered by any repercussions outside. That is not the lookout of the court.
•As far as the court is concerned, the Ayodhya title dispute is just “a case” like any other before it, Mr. Salve submitted.
•“I’m not for a cause but for a client here... the strongest statement this court can make is to treat this case like any other and get on with the hearing,” Mr. Salve submitted.
1994 reference
•But Mr. Sibal countered Mr. Salve by pointing to how a five-judge Bench led by then Chief Justice of India M.N. Venkatachaliah had refused a Presidential reference in 1994 on the question whether Ram Mandir should be built in the disputed land and on the question of acquisition of land on January 7, 1993. The Bench had also pronounced a token punishment to former U.P. Chief Minister Kalyan Singh, under whose watch the monument was demolished.
•“It was a rare occasion when the SC refused a Presidential reference... so this is not just an ordinary suit,” Mr. Sibal said.
•Mr. Dhawan also objected to Mr. Salve, saying the case covers religion and faith and dates back to the era of King Vikramaditya.
•The senior counsel said the question whether a mosque was an essential part of Islam had to be decided.
•The senior counsel referred to the 1994 three-judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui case, which had held that “the right to practice, profess and propagate religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution does not necessarily include the right to acquire or own or possess property. Similarly this right does not extend to the right of worship at any and every place of worship”.
•“So is the mosque not an essential part of Islam? Muslims cannot go to the garden and pray,” Mr. Dhawan submitted.
•He said the appeals should be referred to a five-judge Bench as it dealt with an important constitutional issue.
•Mr. Salve however, countered that a reference to a larger Bench need be made only as and when such an “occasion or context” arises, and not now.
•Consequently, the court did not entertain, for now, the plea to refer the 13 appeals to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
•The appeals are against a September 2010 judgment delivered by a three-judge Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court for a three-way partition of the disputed site in Ayodhya.
•“Government is keen to have the court hear these appeals. Don't fall into the trap,” Mr. Dave joined in.
•Mr. Sibal said the government was using the judiciary to realise its agenda for a Ram Mandir assured in the ruling BJP’s 2014 election manifesto. A hearing now fits the Sangh Parivar assurances to realise their promise of a temple through legal means, he said.
•He dissuaded the Supreme Court from hearing the appeals now, saying a “decision in the case will invite serious ramifications. Now is not the right time to hear it. It will have repercussions. It is already happening. Post it after July 15, 2019, when everything is over. We will not ask for an adjournment then”.
•Even as the Uttar Pradesh government said it was ready to argue and reminded the court that it had refused in the previous hearing in August to entertain any adjournments when it posted for opening statements today, Mr. Sibal protested, saying there were 19,000 documents involved in the case and it would only be fair on the part of the court to allow the lawyers more time to prepare.
•“This case will be the most important case in India's history. This will decide the future of India,” Mr. Sibal submitted.
•Justice Ashok Bhushan, on the Bench with Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, reminded Mr. Sibal that it was the appellants who had wanted an early hearing in December/January of 2017.
•“Your submissions are non-serious,” Justice Bhushan observed.
•At one point, counsels Sibal, Dhawan and Dave made as if to leave the courtroom when the Bench refused their pleas and turned to hear senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, for the deity, Ram Lalla, who offered to kick-off the hearing by making the opening statement.
•In his counter, senior advocate Harish Salve for the respondents said the court need not be bothered by any repercussions outside. That is not the lookout of the court.
•As far as the court is concerned, the Ayodhya title dispute is just “a case” like any other before it, Mr. Salve submitted.
•“I’m not for a cause but for a client here... the strongest statement this court can make is to treat this case like any other and get on with the hearing,” Mr. Salve submitted.
1994 reference
•But Mr. Sibal countered Mr. Salve by pointing to how a five-judge Bench led by then Chief Justice of India M.N. Venkatachaliah had refused a Presidential reference in 1994 on the question whether Ram Mandir should be built in the disputed land and on the question of acquisition of land on January 7, 1993. The Bench had also pronounced a token punishment to former U.P. Chief Minister Kalyan Singh, under whose watch the monument was demolished.
•“It was a rare occasion when the SC refused a Presidential reference... so this is not just an ordinary suit,” Mr. Sibal said.
•Mr. Dhawan also objected to Mr. Salve, saying the case covers religion and faith and dates back to the era of King Vikramaditya.
•The senior counsel said the question whether a mosque was an essential part of Islam had to be decided.
•The senior counsel referred to the 1994 three-judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui case, which had held that “the right to practice, profess and propagate religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution does not necessarily include the right to acquire or own or possess property. Similarly this right does not extend to the right of worship at any and every place of worship”.
•“So is the mosque not an essential part of Islam? Muslims cannot go to the garden and pray,” Mr. Dhawan submitted.
•He said the appeals should be referred to a five-judge Bench as it dealt with an important constitutional issue.
•Mr. Salve however, countered that a reference to a larger Bench need be made only as and when such an “occasion or context” arises, and not now.
•Consequently, the court did not entertain, for now, the plea to refer the 13 appeals to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
•The appeals are against a September 2010 judgment delivered by a three-judge Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court for a three-way partition of the disputed site in Ayodhya with reference to the SC judgment in the 1994 Ismail Farooqui case.
📰 SC calls for regulating hefty fees of lawyers
‘Poor have right to equal justice’
•The astronomical fees charged by lawyers and the commercialisation of the legal profession is a violation of the fundamental right of the poor to get equal justice, the Supreme Court held in a judgment pronounced on Tuesday.
•A Bench of Justices A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit, in a scathing judgment on the state of the legal profession, said that neither the Bar nor the judiciary have made any move to regularise the hefty fees charged by lawyers from the poor and the needy.
•A report filed by the Law Commission way back in 1988 to regularise lawyers’ fees continues to be in cold storage. The very essence of the legal profession is to provide inexpensive access to justice, the court observed.
•The apex court urged for a law to check the violation of professional ethics by lawyers.
•The judgment came in the case of B. Sunitha, a woman from Telangana whose husband died in a road accident. She was made to sign a cheque for ₹three lakh by a lawyer who represented her accident claims case in the lower courts. This was over and above the ₹10 lakh she had already paid to him.
•In her petition in the apex court, filed through Supreme Court advocate K. Parameshwar, Ms. Sunitha argued that the lawyer had exploited her trust.
•“The confidence of the public in the legal profession is integral to the confidence of the public in the legal system,” the Supreme Court observed.
📰 India’s plural soul
An assassination, a demolition and a portrait’s unveiling together spelt the polarisation of India
•The partitioning of India broke us, shamed us. It is estimated that nearly two million were slaughtered during the weeks around Partition, almost no Muslim surviving in East Punjab and no Hindu or Sikh in West Punjab. About 7.5 million Muslims left India for the newly formed state of Pakistan and about 7.5 million Hindus trekked to the new India from Pakistan. Both sets of displaced persons were seeking the security of a religious majority, their majority.
•Gandhi’s scorching presence, the new government’s unwavering commitment to pluralism and the humanity of millions of ordinary people saved the tragedy from becoming a cataclysm.
The triptych of an agenda
•After that traumatic year, three dates, three events, shook Indian pluralism again. Gandhi’s assassination — January 30, 1948; the Babri Masjid demolition — December 6, 1992, and the unveiling of V.D. Savarkar’s portrait in Parliament House — February 26, 2003
•The first of these three saw a believer in the criticality of India’s pluralism being put to death. The second witnessed a pre-eminent Islamic monument reduced to rubble. The third valorised a man who believed India was meant to be a Hindu Rashtra. The first was murder, the second vandalism, the third a celebration.
Those three form a triptych.
•All three occurrences singed India’s plural soul.
•Their “work” is still on. It is still affecting ways of thinking, acting, reacting.
•The assassination was a carefully planned plot by people who owed allegiance to the concept of a Hindu Rashtra. Its aim was threefold: punish, by murder, one who believed India to be the home of all the faith traditions in it, reverse Gandhi’s idea of “Ishvar Allah Tere Naam”, pronounce the primacy and power of Hinduism in India. It was meant to tell the Muslims of India that they were here by leave of the Hindus and that all talk of Hindu-Muslim unity and equality was sentimental and meaningless.
•Gandhi’s killing traumatised the country. It devastated Muslims in India. Who would, hereafter, be its rakhvala (protector)? Nehru said that evening: “The light has gone out of our lives and there is darkness everywhere.” For India’s Muslims who had said “no” to Pakistan and stayed back in India because they had faith in Gandhi’s India, that darkness was real. Along with the light, the oxygen of confidence in the air fled, too.
•Several years and countless Hindu-Muslim riots later, the unhealed wound on India’s plural ethos was violently cut open once again.
Another dateline
•Ayodhya, December 6, 1992 is a dateline, a hate-line, a fate-line.
•Babri Masjid, the 16th century mosque was built spitefully, it is said, on the exact spot in Ayodhya, where Rama was born. In fact, the pious say, a temple stood where the mosque came up. The mosque had, over the years, become a contested site, a Hindu v Muslim akhara. And on that day, Hindu muscle power asserted itself. Watched by unwitting, unsure or captive seniors of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and with a police force unable or unwilling to intervene, 1,50,000 delirious Hindu kar sevaks brought the mosque down.
•In the rubble lay all hope for Hindu-Muslim concord. In it lay shattered Muslim trust in India’s secular future. And in it lay tattered, the Constitution’s guarantees about the freedom of religious belief.
•The broken stones said more: Here rises, at long last, they proclaimed, Veer Savarkar’s dream of a Hindu Rashtra.
•India partitioned was now India polarised.
•Savarkar’s spirit must have felt more than fulfilled.
Moving over to Parliament
•A decade later, the BJP in power at the Centre, decided that for Savarkar’s fulfilment to be complete, due ceremony was in order. It decided to place in Parliament House’s Central Hall, along with portraits of the Greats of India’s freedom struggle, a portrait of this freedom fighter as well. Savarkar was, of course, a fighter for India’s freedom. On his terms, in his own light. With Mohammed Ali Jinnah, also a freedom fighter according to his own terms and his own lights, Savarkar believed that Hindus and Muslims formed Two Nations. Jinnah realised his goal with Partition. Savarkar did not, could not, for India insisted, through its Constitution, its laws and public policy pronouncements, that it was secular. Asoka’s Lion Capital was, after all, the Republic of India’s new emblem.
•Savarkar’ dream remained un-realised until the unveiling of the portrait. That completed the triptych.
•The unveiling in Parliament House did three things. First, it placed against the Indian Republic a conceptual alternative — Hindu Rashtra. Second, it made demolition the exact co-relative of construction. Third, it made Veer Savarkar, the precise opposite number of Mahatma Gandhi. And thereby, his peer, alternative and equal. It juxtaposed the Two Nations theorist against the One Nation preceptor.
An agenda at work
•The assassination, the demolition and the portrait’s unveiling, together, go to spell a long word with a short agenda: polarisation.
•The ghastly terrorist attacks in Mumbai of 1993, in Parliament House of 2001 and again in Mumbai in 2008 may or may not have been retaliatory for Ayodhya. I believe the attacks would have happened, Ayodhya or no Ayodhya. For such is the blind bloodlust of terror, such the radicalisation of unemployed, callow youth in Pakistan. And such the mutually nourishing agenda of polarisation.
•That agenda, as I said, remains at work. The Ayodhya dateline etched hate, stretched fate — the fate of secularism — to its limits. It continues to do so.
•The demolition in Ayodhya was the first step. Like a bhumi-puja. The second step is the building of the temple. The third, its consecration. And there will be as many more steps as the rites of polarisation require.
•The building of a Ram temple at the site of the Masjid is not going to be easy. But keeping the idea of that building alive is all too easy.
•For polarisers, better than a temple built is a temple that is waiting to be built. It keeps spirits up, tensions high. It keeps terrorists on the other side activated. And it keeps cadres on this side motivated.
•December 6, 1992 is not a fading date in history; it is marked ochre red in the future calendars of the Hindu Rashtra. For those who hailed it, the 25th “anniversary” of the demolition promises future sport. For those who were aghast by it, it promises future struggle.
•The struggle to keep polarisation at bay will be unrelenting for the memories of Partition and the mayhem of terror will keep churning up hate, fear. Bigots face each other, unblinkingly. Their bigotry feeds each other, untiringly. The higher the Hindu bigotry in India, the happier the Islamic zealotry in Pakistan. Polarisation is their common nourishment.
•But hate and fear are not a normal condition; fanaticism not a natural emotion. Plain common sense and Gandhi’s miraculously still-alive spirit have staved off communal frenzy. Never more effectively than when bloodthirsty terrorists sought to mutilate life in Mumbai in 1993 and then to maim the House of India’s Parliament in 2001. All of India could have erupted then into communal frenzy, but it did not. Likewise, when Gujarat 2002 could have spread, but did not.
•The India of Asoka, Akbar, Gandhi, Nehru, Ambedkar is strong but pinioned under the blades of the Two Nations theory. It is for the inheritors of their India to match the date-lines of hate and the fate-lines of death with the life-line that Gandhi made from the essences, the intangible susman of his belief that India is One Nation and Ishvar Allah two names, among other ones, for the One.
📰 Pakistan textbooks glorifying war: UNESCO
Report also blames Indian texts from 2002 that have ‘bias’ against Muslims
•The Global Education Monitoring Report 2017-18 of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), released on Monday, expresses concern over school textbooks in many countries glorifying war and military heroes rather than teaching peace, non-violence and reconciliation.
•It says that that just 10% of the textbooks across the world include explicit statements on the need for conflict prevention and resolution.
Historical errors
•The report offers the example of textbooks in Pakistan that focus on militarism, wars with India and differences between Hindus and Muslims.
•“Textbooks that glorify war and military heroes, exclude pluralistic perspectives or undermine other peoples or ethnicities can make teaching peace, non-violence and reconciliation difficult,” says the report. “In Pakistan, textbooks have been criticised for normalising militarism and war and including biases and historical errors and distortions. Prominent Pakistanis other than military heroes and nationalist movement leaders are often excluded.”
•It adds, “Pakistani textbooks published after a 2006 curriculum reform still emphasised wars with India and largely ignored peace initiatives. They also perpetuated a narrative of conflict and historic grievances between Muslims and Hindus, rather than discussing the potential for conflict resolution and reconciliation.”
•Seeing deterioration in Indian textbooks, too, on this ground, the report says, “For their part, Indian history textbooks from 2002 put the blame on Pakistan and contained clear bias against Muslim elements in the region’s history.”
•The time pertains to the replacement of the history textbooks that had been in circulation since the 1970s by the Vajpayee government in the early 2000s.
•Emphasising that textbooks shape young minds powerfully as they trust them as a prime source of knowledge, the report says, “However, textbooks in many countries fail to deal comprehensively with concepts that are crucial for social cohesion and political stability, including peace and non-violence.”
📰 ₹8,450 crore package to boost exports post GST
Move to counter impact of GST
•The government on Tuesday announced incentives worth ₹8,450 crore to boost exports of goods and services — mainly from labour-intensive segments and the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises — and to increase employment generation and value-addition. The incentives were announced as part of the mid-term review of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP).
•The move comes at a time when India’s shipments shrank in October — the first after 14 consecutive months of positive growth — due to the impact of the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
•“The FTP will continue to be reviewed and evaluated regularly for addressing concerns of the exporters, simplification of procedures and for promotion of exports,” an official statement said.
•The FTP for the period 2015-2020 had set an ambitious target of $900 billion for India’s exports of goods and services by 2019-20.
•It also aimed to raise India’s share in world exports from 2% to 3.5%. The FTP mid-term review was to be brought out before July 1, to be implemented along with the GST. It was postponed to incorporate feedback from exporters regarding GST.
•Union Commerce and Industry Minister Suresh Prabhu, speaking on the occasion, referred to the GST-related challenges faced by the exporters and said “Any new legislation can’t be made perfect in one go. For instance, even the Income Tax Act, which deals with direct tax and therefore, is far simpler compared to the GST (which subsumed /replaced several indirect taxes), was amended several times. We will regularly revisit and address all the operational issues relating to the GST.”
•The Minister asked exporters to look at the big business opportunities worldwide, adding that the government was keen to ensure that India is a “powerful export-oriented country.”
•Finance Secretary Hasmukh Adhia said the export (incentive) package was approved by the GST Council to resolve the exporters’ problem of blockage of working capital. He further stated that input tax credit and integrated goods and services tax (IGST) refunds for exporters were being expedited. He said the GST would be very beneficial for exporters in the long run, and added that the new regime will also curb tax evasion.
•The highlights of the FTP Mid-Term Review included “restoring the benefits under the export promotion schemes of duty free imports under Advanced Authorisation, Export Promotion Capital Goods and 100% Export Oriented Units, thus resolving the problem of blocked working capital for exporters following the roll-out of GST.”
•Export incentives under Merchandise Exports from India (MEIS) have been increased by 2% across the board for labour-intensive MSME sectors leading to additional annual incentive of ₹4,567 crore, the government said. This is in addition to already announced increase in MEIS incentives from 2% to 4% for ready-made garments and madeups in the labour intensive textiles sector, with an additional annual incentive of ₹2,743 crore.
•Further, incentives under Services Exports from India Scheme (SEIS) have also been increased by 2% leading to additional annual incentive of ₹1,140 crore.
•A new scheme of self-assessment based, duty-free procurement of inputs required for exports has also been introduced. A state-of-the-art Trade Analytics division has been set up in the Directorate General of Foreign Trade for data based policy actions. The initiative envisages processing trade information for specific policy interventions. Besides, a new Logistics Division has been created in the Department of Commerce to develop and coordinate integrated development of the logistics sector. Support to Export Credit Guarantee Corporation is also being enhanced to increase insurance cover to exporters, particularly MSMEs, for exploring new or difficult markets, an official statement said.
•In addition, the validity period of Duty Credit Scrips has been increased from 18 to 24 months and GST rates on transfer/sale of scrips has been reduced to zero.
•Issue of gold availability for exporters has been resolved by allowing specified nominated agencies to import gold without payment of IGST.
📰 2 kiwi birds are rare bright spot in grim extinction report
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature upgraded the Okarito kiwi and the Northern Brown kiwi from endangered to vulnerable thanks to New Zealand’s progress in controlling predators like stoats and cats.
•Two types of New Zealand kiwi birds are rare bright spots in a mostly grim assessment of global species at risk of extinction.
•The International Union for the Conservation of Nature upgraded the Okarito kiwi and the Northern Brown kiwi from endangered to vulnerable thanks to New Zealand’s progress in controlling predators like stoats and cats.
•But the conservation group’s latest update on Tuesday mostly detailed grave threats to animals and plants due to loss of habitat and unsustainable farming and fisheries practices.
•It said three reptile species are now considered extinct in the wild. The whiptail-skink, the blue-tailed skink and Lister’s gecko from Australia’s Christmas Island all have mysteriously disappeared. The group said a disease or the arrival of an invasive species, the yellow crazy ant, might be to blame.
📰 New graphene-based battery charges five times faster
•Scientists have developed a new graphene-based battery material with charging speed five times faster than today’s lithium-ion batteries.
•The breakthrough by researchers at the Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology (SAIT) in South Korea provides promise for the next generation mobile batteries and electric vehicles.
•Standard lithium batteries require charging time of at least an hour to fully charge, even with quick charging technology, so numerous attempts to explore new innovative materials have been started.
•Among the materials looked at, graphene, a material with high strength and conductivity, has widely become the primary source of interest. In theory, a battery based on the “graphene ball” material requires only 12 minutes to fully charge, researchers said. This “graphene ball” was utilised for both the anode protective layer and cathode materials. This ensured an increase of charging capacity, decrease of charging time as well as stable temperatures.
•In the study published in the journal Nature Communications, researchers used graphene and mass synthesised it into a 3D form using silica (SiO2).
•“Our research enables mass synthesis of .... graphene at an affordable price, ...as the markets for mobile devices and electric vehicles is growing rapidly” said Dr.Son In-hyuk from SAIT, who led the project.
📰 Fight for market economy status
Why the U.S. is blocking China’s bid
•Last week, the U.S. protested at the World Trade Organisation against China’s bid for recognition as a market economy. Its opposition is a counter to China’s 2016 legal challenge against the U.S. and the European Union, both of which refuse to accord China the coveted status it wants. They say that the use of state subsidies in China distorts market prices. Significant in this regard is the fact that the U.S. Commerce Department is conducting separate investigations into the dumping of aluminium foil by China.
•Central to China’s quest is the acknowledgement from trading partners that domestic prices are determined by open competition rather than by the government. This will help China counter attacks of unfair dumping. Conversely, as long as major trading powers treat China as a non-market economy, they would insist on ascertaining the value of goods with reference to prices in a third country to ensure that domestic firms did not gain an unfair trade advantage. Were China to be granted the coveted position, it would be hard for the U.S. to defend its anti-dumping rulings against Chinese firms at the world body.
•The protocol to China’s 2001 WTO entry has been a subject of controversy. Beijing insists that under Section 15 of the Protocol of Accession, the country’s upgrade as a market economy was automatic on the completion of 15 years of its WTO membership in 2016. Several nations have endorsed China’s position in return for bilateral cooperation in trade and investments in infrastructure projects. In support of that contention is a WTO appellate body’s 2011 ruling that the protocol to Beijing’s accession did not provide for the country to be treated differently by other member states for an indefinite period.
•The alternative interpretation draws upon sub-clauses of Section 15, which stipulates conditions when importers may rely on Chinese prices, or take recourse to a different methodology to impose anti-dumping tariffs. Section 15(1)(i) places the onus on Chinese firms to prove that they were operating under conditions of a competitive market economy in the manufacture and sale of relevant products. If they fail to do so, the Section provides that importing states would be entitled to invoke rules applicable to a non-market economy while probing firms for dumping.
•Now, a subsequent provision stipulates a 2016 date of expiry for recourse to the alternative methodology of determining prices. Another clause allows for the status of market economy to be decided for specific industry sectors, rather than the entire economy. Western resistance to accord China the necessary recognition is rooted in concerns over a glut of Chinese imports flooding domestic markets and causing job losses in the manufacturing sector. But the Trump administration’s attempts to undermine the WTO’s dispute resolution mechanism could further delay an outcome in the appellate body’s process of disposing of cases.
📰 GST opens up a lot of data for policymaking, says T.C.A. Anant
The Chief Statistician of India on the economy, the meaning of the new series of GDP data, and the need to wait for the impact of demonetisation to unfold
• T.C.A. Anant is the Chief Statistician of India, and Secretary, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. He has been in charge of several notable changes in the way economic data has been recently presented, including the new GDP and Gross Value Added data series, and the rebased Wholesale Price Index, updated to incorporate more recent items and methods. In this interview, he speaks of capturing data and the effects of demonetisation. Excerpts:
What has been the impact of restocking on the growth of the manufacturing sector in Q2?
•What is our data for restocking or inventory? There are two things. Let me go back a little to the period just before the GST was launched and the Q1 estimates. There was a lot of colloquial evidence that suggested that firms were clearing inventory because of the issues involved with the tax treatment of goods produced prior to the GST rollout and selling products manufactured pre-GST in the post-GST regime. The only statistical evidence that is available — because we don’t really get data on inventories in any detail at this stage — is in the company filings which were made available for Q1. There, the change in stock figures was sharply negative.
•In manufacturing companies, the change in stocks figure is negative for Q2 as well. The way I am interpreting the number is that it is suggesting that closing stocks at the end of Q1 were not significantly larger than the opening stocks at the beginning of Q1. How does one explain this? Very likely, most companies draw down their inventories during the festive season and maintain an inventory balance in the slack season, partly to smooth production out.
•My reasoning is that this time, because of GST, they would have postponed the production to Q2. So it is very likely that Q2 production was principally meant for sales in the festive season. Whatever inventory accumulation or restoration is going to happen will happen only after the festive season sales are accounted for.
•At this point, this is indicative. So, a lot of the statements that have been made saying that this growth bump is because of restocking are essentially trying to undermine the boost that would ordinarily happen on account of production for the festive season. This time, that production has been compressed into a single quarter, so the boost was in fact larger. The restocking boost will probably happen later, which means the attempt to say this is just a one-off is not looking at the data.
What more can be done to capture data of the informal sector?
•The informal sector is defined as that part of the economy where the establishment does not maintain regular accounts. It is informal because it is not subject to most of the traditional ways in which you can capture data. GST will certainly capture a lot more monthly data. And we are looking at the GST forms very closely. We had earlier started an exercise with the CBEC [CentralBoard of Excise and Customs], but that coverage was much less. We are now looking at the same exercise with GST to see if GST reporting can be used to compile a more up-to-date monthly or quarterly index. Formally, if you look at the GST form, every producer of a good or service makes his payment and also gives some details about the production which is subject to tax. From that, you can draw conclusions. We should be able to do this sooner rather than later.
•But, even with GST, you are not going to get the informal sector in that sense because the entities who will be filing this regular monthly return will be the larger companies, not the informal sector. We will get fairly quick disaggregated data for the larger entities from the GST database. Insofar as the smaller companies are concerned, some things will be possible with the data from the composition scheme data, but it won’t be as granular as you get in the non-composition scheme GST data. But for the informal sector, the principle source of data is through establishment surveys. Regular establishment surveys, as recommended by the taskforce under [Arvind] Panagariya, will help here.
So, GST opens up more data for policymaking?
•GST opens up a lot. In addition to aggregates, you will also get data on inter-State transactions which was previously not available. This will give us a much better picture of a spatial spread of economic activity. We assume at the moment that when manufacturing has picked up, it has picked up uniformly all over India. That is really an assumption, because we don’t know what has happened. What GST will allow us to do is get a spatial perspective on this. And our understanding from other areas, wherever we have good spatial data, is that here are spatial divergences in India. You may well find that the pickup has taken place in X band of States and not in Y band. That sort of information will be very useful to the policy establishment when they start looking at GST data more closely.
With more than three quarters worth of data, can you now estimate the effect of demonetisation?
•You can’t quantify the effect of demonetisation yet. To quantify what demonetisation did or did not do, you would need to do a proper exercise where you would have a counterfactual compared to the post-demonetisation exercise. Statistically, that will not happen for some time because you will need long enough time series to generate counterfactuals and do the comparison.
•It is important to note that all that demonetisation constituted was less than a two quarter period in which there was a currency squeeze. By and large, large entities did not show much of an impact, as revealed in corporate filings. Then everybody said that this will be taking place in the informal sector. Not because there was any data for it, but because there must be an effect, and if it’s not in the formal sector, it must be in the informal sector. Fair enough. But the problem is that the informal sector is certainlycash dependent but it is also relationship dependent.
•There were as many colloquial stories of relationship credit taking over. Some media people cited stories of people saying their paanwaala was willing to extend them credit because he was unable to encash a ₹2,000 note. If you put the possibility of cash being substituted with relationship credit, the logical assumption would be that the impact would be less than what people are making it out to be.
•My assessment is that the demonetisation effect has been overblown insofar as the negative effect is concerned on account of neglect of this channel of credit. Further, the demonetisation story is more complicated than just the cash change story. There is a larger narrative hidden behind it in trying to promote digital transactions. What those impacts are going to be, we are still trying to see. What you do see is that the trajectory of digital transactions has changed. There is a bump up which you got in digitalisation, which you would not have got but for this. That has sustained. And that is a good 8-10% increase.
Since the release of the new series of GDP data, the government has received criticism regarding the back series of the data sets using the new computation methods. By when can we expect this to be released?
•The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) gave us a much bigger picture of the corporate structure. The earlier data that we had about the corporate structure is what we had from the listed companies. The problem we face is of using the longer series of data on listed companies and deriving a growth pattern for the full corporate structure from it. This is analytically a challenging exercise.
•Eventually, you will get it, but as you add more years with MCA data, your ability to compare the listed companies to the unlisted companies improves and therefore your ability to project backwards will improve. This is not a case of reworking the data merely to compile. Had the data existed, there would not be an issue. The difference between this revision and many of the previous revisions is that we have taken on board new data sources for which analogues don’t exist in the past.
•A lot of the older revisions, the quantum of the data available, did not change very dramatically. This is a problem which we are going to face again in the future as we get new data sources coming in. GST is going to give us a database about the economy which is qualitatively very different from anything we had in the past. It will give us, for example, a transactional relationship across the country which we did not have earlier. We will be able to build it into our GDP compilations and improve its quality enormously. But for somebody who asks for a back series on this methodology, the answer is not going to be easy.
•This is something that it is important to recognise. When you modernise a statistical system and bring in new ways of capturing data which did not exist in the past, not simply updates of the old data, the problem of backward projection is much more difficult. This is something that time-series economists will have to live with.
How worried should one be about the Centre’s fiscal deficit numbers?
•A lot of people have picked on the CGA report saying that the fiscal deficit is 96% of the total. They have, as usual, jumped to all sorts of conclusions which in my judgment are wrong. This is something you should have expected. Why? What did the government do this year? It preponed the Budget calendar to allow government expenditure to start from April 1. There is enough evidence to suggest that that did happen. The Q1 government expenditure compared to last year was much better.
•Therefore you would expect that by the end of Q2, the average government expenditure level would be higher than what it was last year. Many expenditure management committees have pointed out that the earlier tendency of delayed bunching expenditure in the last quarter is very bad for both the quality of expenditure and fiscal management.
•There were a number of recommendations about how the government should better manage its expenditure so as to minimise the amount of expenditure that takes place in the last quarter and last month.
•One consequence of this is that, during the year, the fiscal deficit is going to rise because the revenue profile has not changed due to this manipulation of budget dates. The government has made some efforts to push the revenue profile back by changing the advance tax rules. Some of that was done this year too, but those effects will be small. By and large, the revenue profile would remain the same as last year but the expenditure profile has changed, so the logical implication is that the fiscal deficit will rise at this stage. The surprise it generated befuddled me.
📰 New India formula? — on the 15th Finance Commission
The 15th Finance Commission’s job will be especially tricky in the time of GST
•The Centre has moved swiftly to notify the presidential order setting up the Fifteenth Finance Commission, within five days of the Cabinet’s approval. The constitutional body is tasked with recommending a fiscal road map and a sharing of resources between the Centre and the States. On Monday, former Revenue Secretary N.K. Singh, who has been appointed chairman of the Commission, held preliminary discussions on its “wide-ranging” terms of reference and decided to hold expeditious consultations with stakeholders at all administrative levels as well as with political parties. Think tanks and academics will be consulted. The Commission has less than two years to complete its deliberations and submit its report by October 2019, giving the government a little over a quarter to consider and implement its recommendations for the period from April 2020 to March 2025. Accepting the 14th Finance Commission’s recommendation to raise the States’ share in the divisible pool of taxes to 42% from the previous 32% level, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had told Chief Ministers that although this meant less money at the Centre’s disposal, his government had decided to strengthen the States’ capacity to move away from a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. While Mr. Modi’s disdain for Central planning is well-known, the terms of reference for this Commission seem to suggest that the record hike in the tax transfer rate to States is pinching.
•The Centre has urged the Commission to finalise its tax-devolution formula after factoring in the impact on the Union’s fiscal situation, keeping in mind “the continuing imperative of the national development programme including New India – 2022”. Taken together with its need for resources for essential spending in areas such as defence, security, infrastructure and climate change, the Centre seems to be seeking a rollback of the 42% share for States. The government’s top brass has repeatedly asserted the need for revenue to maintain public spending in the face of flak for high petroleum taxes. But a reduction from the 42% rate could dent States’ faith in the Centre’s claims of cooperative federalism. The rollout of the goods and services tax, which marks a new chapter in tax administration with both the Centre and States working together through the GST Council, makes the challenge trickier. The Centre is committed to compensating States for any revenue losses arising out of GST implementation till June 2022, thus covering nearly half the period for which the Commission is to recommend a formula. Its mandate includes formulating performance-linked incentives for States on a range of desirable outcomes such as attaining a replacement rate in population growth, deepening the GST net and improving the ease of doing business. Devising a fiscal nudge for development goals sounds attractive, though the challenge would lie in quantifying the good from the ugly — especially when one has to reward a State for showing ‘control or lack of it in incurring expenditure on populist measures’.
📰 Of crime and punishment
Low conviction rates and a lack of a lawful definition of crime mark criminal administration in India
•Police reform in India has been concerned with political interference ever since the landmark Supreme Court judgement, in 2006, on the subject. The focus should really be on reorganising criminal administration.
•The annual publication of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), “Crime in India 2016”, which was released recently, presents a dismal picture of the key performance statistic with only 47% convictions in Indian Penal Code (IPC) crimes at the national level.
•Delhi provides an interesting case study, where there is no political interference and the Police Commissioner reports to the Lieutenant Governor, and not the Chief Minister. With a population smaller than Mumbai, it has two times the number of police stations. Yet, in Delhi, while 1,90,876 persons were sent to trial last year, there were only 9,837 IPC convictions in the year. In Delhi only 58% of those arrested were chargesheeted, while in Mumbai, more persons were chargesheeted than were arrested for IPC crimes. In Delhi, 13,803 crimes against women were reported and no chargesheets filed in 4,371 cases (32%); in Mumbai with 5,128 crimes reported against women, final reports were filed in only 15% of cases. The key statistic of police performance is not merely correct reporting and recording but chargesheets and convictions, as this impacts on criminal behaviour.
DNA testing
•In Delhi, DNA testing, which can secure higher conviction rates, is, inexplicably, a low priority. There is only one forensic testing laboratory, with around 9,000 samples pending for examination. Over 5,000 are DNA samples. Delays in this crucial evidence, which plays an important factor in acquittals, are a setback as samples deteriorate with time. Consequently Delhi has a conviction rate of only 21%, 24% and 30% in cases of kidnapping and abduction, rape and murder, respectively.
•The Delhi Police website says that it is perhaps the world’s largest metropolitan police force and arguments that Delhi accounts for 38% of the total crime under the IPC because of its migrant population are a simplistic explanation. Delhi accounts for five times the IPC crime when compared with Mumbai, and 33% of violent crime in metros when compared with 13% in Mumbai. Crime prevention is affected by conviction rate, beat patrolling, and by the police and community working together.
•There is a need to distinguish between accountability and operational responsibility. For example, ‘the Mayor of London is responsible for setting policing priorities that will hold the Met Police Commissioner to account. Operational decision-making on day-to-day policing remains the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. The Police and Crime Plan 2013-2016 has clear performance measures that focus on results such as 20% reduction in key neighbourhood crimes, 20% reduction in delays in the criminal justice system, and 20% reduction in reoffending by young people leaving custody. The plan was based on extensive consultation which included town hall meetings, additional stakeholder forums, focus groups and an online survey.
Unresolved issues
•In addition to those related to roles and responsibilities, there are also systemic issues. Despite the recommendations of Law Commissions and the Supreme Court, as well going by experience in the developed world, we do not have separate wings for investigation of crime and for law and order. Related to this reform is the debate whether the police is a functional “service” based on skills of investigation or a “force” oriented towards “effect” which on command will operate regardless of the cost to itself or the social fabric. Similarly, in most countries, the prosecutor, and not the police, has discretion on whether to press charges as they involve adjudication. Years ago, the Law Commission had suggested a directorate of prosecution independent of the police to guide investigation.
•Second, there is still controversy over which kinds of conduct are best controlled by the application of criminal law and which kinds by other means.
•For example, special and local offences account for as much crime as under provisions of the IPC, with nearly 60% of cases under liquor and narcotics offences at the national level. Causing simple and grievous injures under rash driving accounts for 11% of IPC crimes; theft also accounts for 16.6% of IPC crime at the national level.
•For Delhi, half of theft cases involve motor vehicles. Cases related to liquor and motor vehicles account for more than a third of all cases. The criminal justice system should be limited to crimes under the IPC, while enforcement of administrative law and social legislation requires a different approach involving summary trials, changing societal attitudes and modes of behaviour. For example, in Britain part-time lay judges outnumber full-time judges, leaving the judiciary to concentrate on the real crime.
•Third, the effectiveness of prisons is now being questioned. Nearly two-thirds of the prison population is awaiting trial and half the number of undertrials are normally acquitted. Over 80% of prisoners are sentenced to terms less than three months, 40% are under 30 years old, semi-literate and convicted under special and local acts. Criminologists now feel that short-term sentences expose such prisoners to criminal indoctrination in jail and social condemnation on release, with a strong case for greater reliance on compounding, probation and parole.
•The main purpose of criminal administration should be the prevention of crime, and the police cannot be an instrument of social change. Administrative measures and fines levied by honorary and executive magistrates will change behaviour better than penal action.
