📰 India, ASEAN cultural ties a living link: Sushma Swaraj
ASEAN-India Commemorative Summit scheduled tomorrow
•India’s cultural relation with Southeast Asia is centuries old and serves as a living link between the two sides, said the External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj on Tuesday. Ms. Swaraj made the reference as she launched the final phase of events leading to the ASEAN-India Commemorative Summit on 25 January, 2018.
•“We are in South Asia and they are in Southeast Asia. So we cannot become part of their region geographically. But we have common cultural link that is not just a mere connection, but a living link. Buddhism and Ramayana connects us with the region.,” said Ms. Swaraj. .
•Earlier in the day, Ms. Swaraj welcomed the first of the ASEAN dignitaries for the summit, Foreign Minister of Brunei Pehin Lim Jock Seng. This meeting is expected to be followed by a series of bilateral meetings that will begin on Wednesday.
•The meetings are held in preparation for the summit which celebrates 25th anniversary of the ASEAN-India Dialogue Partnership. The Dialogue Partnership was formed on 28 January 1992 when a Sectoral Dialogue Partnership with India was launched by ASEAN in its fourth summit in Singapore.
•“Our ties, however, are not just 25 years old. Our ties stretch long back in history,” said Ms. Swaraj in her speech which was attended by several dignitaries from the region who have begun to arrive in the capital for the summit of 25 January.
•Top leaders from the ten ASEAN countries will begin arriving from 11 am onwards on Wednesday.
•President of Vietnam Nguyen XuanPhuc will be the first to hold bilateral talks with President Ramnath Kovind and Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday evening. PM Modi will also hold discussions with the President of Philippines Rodrigo Duterte and the State Counsellor of Myanmar Aung San Suu Kyi.
📰 Japan for greater ties with India in food processing
Wants Centre to address taxation and infrastructure issues
•Japanese Ambassador to India Kenji Hiramatsu on Tuesday said there was plenty of room to expand India-Japan ties, especially in food processing, urban development, environment and sanitation as well as medicine. However, he wanted the Indian government to address the concerns of Japanese firms including on taxation, financial regulation and infrastructure.
•Mr. Hiramatsu was addressing the joint meeting of the India-Japan Business Cooperation Committee organised by industry bodies FICCI and the Japan Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The Ambassador said in the area of urban development, Japan was helping India in developing Chennai, Ahmedabad and Varanasi as smart cities.
Priority areas
•He said the other priority areas for cooperation included water supply, sewage treatment, natural disaster management techniques, internet of things, artificial intelligence, robotics, start-ups and industrial corridors. Japanese firms have been pitching, among other things, for improved infrastructure in India, uninterrupted power supply, reduction of Goods and Services Tax on hybrid and electric cars, easing foreign currency norms, including on external commercial borrowings.
•A FICCI report released on the occasion cited the areas of cooperation between India and Japan, including high speed railways (linking Mumbai and Ahmedabad) and building Japanese Industrial Townships.
📰 Infrastructure is an issue for Asean, India
Connectivity also a challenge: Minister
•Infrastructure and connectivity are among the major challenges facing India and Asean-member countries that are looking to further boost trade ties, Minister of State for Commerce and Industry C.R. Chaudhary said on Tuesday.
Trilateral highway
•In the works are construction of a trilateral highway — India-Myanmar-Thailand — and extending that project to Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, the Kaladan Multi Modal Transit Transport Project to improve links between India’s eastern ports and Myanmar’s Sittwe port, as well as the Asean-India maritime transport cooperation pact to eliminate barriers that trouble maritime trade, he said. He was speaking at the Asean-India Business and Investment Meet and Expo. Besides, there is also the proposed rail link Vietnam and India.
📰 ‘SAARC can learn from ASEAN’: Kishore Mahbubani
•One of Singapore’s best known diplomats and now an academic, Kishore Mahbubani’s latest book The ASEAN miracle advocates a Nobel peace prize for the regional grouping. Ahead of the ASEAN-India 25th year commemorative summit to be held this week, with all 10 leaders of the Association as chief guests at Republic Day, Professor Mahbubani says SAARC has much to learn from ASEAN’s success.
You have called ASEAN a miracle and even recommended the Nobel peace prize for the grouping. Why?
•The key point is that regional organisations are designed to fail. Because you are getting together a group of neighbouring countries, so it’s not a grouping of choice, but an accident of geography.
•Most neighbours have a long history of feuds and problems, so they have to overcome the challenges of history to come together, and hence don’t do well. Except for maybe the European Union and ASEAN, and for the EU it took two major world wars before they decided to stop fighting.
•ASEAN has achieved the same level of peace and prosperity without going to war, as the Europeans did. At the same time there is no other region on Planet Earth that is so diverse. You have 600 million people, of which 214 million are Muslim, 110 million are Christian, 150 million are Buddhist…even within the Buddhists you have Mahayana and Hinayana sects, then you have Taoists, Confucionists, Hindus, Communists, there is such amazing diversity.
•When it was born in 1967, South East Asia was by far the most troubled place on earth. There were more bombs dropped in Indo-China (Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) than all of Europe in World War II. And we overcame all that and created a community that is today so peaceful.
•If you could achieve this level of prosperity in South Asia, with India and Pakistan’s problems, or in the Middle East with the Saudi Arabia-Iran rivalry, people would say, what a miracle, you should get a Nobel Peace Prize. ASEAN has achieved that.
Isn’t ASEAN divided too today, amidst pro-US and pro-China camps?
•Look, ASEAN countries have diverse views on many things. Take for example, the Israel-Palestine issue. Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei don’t have diplomatic relations with Israel, but Singapore has a very close relationship with Israel. Between U.S. and China, I would say there is a spectrum of views. Some like Cambodia maybe more pro-China, Vietnam is more pro-America. But at the same time Vietnam’s number one trading partner is China. In 1979, the border between China and Vietnam had one million soldiers on each side confronting each other. Today, they are gone. So all ASEAN countries have different positions on US and China, but they make efforts for good relations with both.
You’ve famously said that ASEAN was started because of a 4-letter word: Fear, meaning fear of Communist China overrunning them in the 1960s and 1970s. Does that fear still guide them?
•The fears that we had in the 1960s was because of the spread of communism, and if you remember Russia and China were together. China referred to the creation of ASEAN as a neo-imperialist plot. Things only turned around after the US-China Nixon détente, and then China normalised relations with all ASEAN countries. Today it is not so much the fear of China, but the fear that the US-China geopolitical rivalry will divide ASEAN.
You write that the US’s choices with China in the Indo-pacific are to “pivot, poison or to make peace”. What does that mean?
•Well, I believe the biggest mistake the U.S. could do is mount some kind of containment policy of China. All China’s neighbours would be uncomfortable to join the US in this, and even Japan would be very cautious. They want to balance and hedge against China, but not contain China. The US also gives mixed signals: on the economic front they have good relations, but on the military front, the US navy undertakes fairly aggressive patrolling close to China’s shores. If America continues this, the Chinese navy may begin aggressive patrolling along California’s shores. Instead, given new surveillance technology, they should create a new conduct code for patrolling.
To turn to the ASEAN-India relationship. You were a key diplomat when India was inducted as a dialogue partner 25 years ago, and Singapore is given credit for that. All these years later, do you think the promise of the relationship is being realised?
•First, I would say it was then-PM Goh Chok Tong who pulled off the Indian induction, and I’ve written in the book about how the decision was taken to make India a dialogue partner, despite pressure not to unless Pakistan was included too. However, I do think the ASEAN-India partnership has not done as well as the other dialogue partnerships with US, [South] Korea, Japan, and Australia.
What would you advise the ASEAN 10 and Indian leaders when they meet this week for their commemorative summit- what should they commit to doing right away?
•The ASEAN-India relationship is not just 25 years, it’s a few thousand years old, and it is important that the leaders draw from the deep well of history to build ties. Nine out of the ten ASEAN countries, all except Vietnam, have an Indian cultural base. Even when the Philippines, a 90% Catholic country hosted the East Asian summit in November last year, it opened with a Ramayana performance. Most Indians are so ignorant and unaware of these links however. The second thing to push for is more flights between ASEAN and Indian countries, to facilitate people to people exchanges.
How important is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) to improving ASEAN-India trade ties, especially given the Indian government’s misgivings on the free trade agreement?
•Well an American diplomat said publicly last week that the US knew RCEP could not be concluded within a year because they know how tough Indian trade negotiators are. I think India now needs to make a careful calculation. It will have to pay a short-term economic price for joining RCEP, but at the same time, if RCEP were formed without India, then the Indo-Pacific idea would be dead. Because if this entire region including Japan, China, S.Korea, Australia and ASEAN come together and form a thriving economic group but India is not a part of it, then what will the Indo-Pacific mean? Indo-Pacific can only succeed as a concept if India trades as much with the East Asian region as the East Asian region trades with itself. The purpose of RCEP is to draw India closer to East Asia. India may need to negotiate bilateral exemptions with China in order to join RCEP, but with ASEAN you must push for more trade.
•Is there a danger of India being left out of RCEP? The government’s stand is not just about access to Chinese goods, but also about ASEAN reluctance on Indian services.
•At some point, if India becomes the one country delaying an agreement on RCEP, then yes. ASEAN countries work on the “minus-X” principle. For example, when ASEAN was formed, Cambodia, Laos were not ready, so we said, we will go on first, and you can join later. There is a desire for the other countries to go ahead with RCEP, as there is a need for integration within the region, and they may just tell India they are going ahead.
The Indo-Pacific concept you referred to received a boost from the revived “Quad” meeting between India-US-Australia-Japan last year. How do you see the Quad?
•I think you have to separate the Indo-Pacific idea from the Quad, as they are not necessarily the same. Indo-Pacific includes the region from the US to India including South East Asia and China. Whereas the Quad is confined to four countries on the periphery. It is an unusual marriage, a marriage of convenience for now.
A year into the Trump presidency, what is its impact on Asia?
•There were huge concerns when President Trump took over, as he had threatened to declare China a currency manipulator, he said he would make Japan and South Korea defend themselves, and had a heated exchange with the Australian PM. So both competitors and US allies were worried. But then we discovered his bark is worse than his bite. In terms of policies Trump has been remarkably consistent, even on North Korea. There has been no war, and the US is backing talks still.
I ask because your next book is called “Has the West Lost it?” Is that about the worry of an American in decline, retrenching positions worldwide?
•A: The US is not going to decline in absolute terms, and its GNP will keep growing. But in the 1960s, American GNP was 40% of the world GNP, and now that is down to 15% in purchasing power parity terms. It’s a very different world as a result. The US is number 2 compared to China, and soon could be number 3 to India. The Americans have great difficulty planning for this world, because they cannot accept that they are second to anyone. They ignored Bill Clinton when he said in 2003 that if America will be world number 1 for always, it should carry on. But if it isn’t then it should consider a world about rules and multilateralism more. Else they won’t be prepared.
If China and India are number 1 and 2 in the future, then will the Asian century inevitably be about their competitive rivalry?
•[The then] PM Manmohan Singh said the world is big enough for both China and India to grow and he was right.
You spoke of the ASEAN miracle. How can South Asia emulate its success, given that the SAARC countries haven’t even been able to meet for years?
•I think the one big lesson from ASEAN is that having regular meetings makes a huge difference to trust levels. I attended the initial ASEAN meetings with five countries in 1971, and the level of distrust was very high. Twenty years of meetings later, there was a world of difference. SAARC should consciously study ASEAN and build a habit of regular meetings at all levels. ASEAN has 1000 meetings a year on all kinds of issues. Health, infections, pandemics, are a common problem, for example. SAARC must build on these common areas.
India says SAARC cannot meet until Pakistan addresses the most common problem of the region: terrorism. How does one get beyond that?
•It’s a question of what comes first. At ASEAN, Philippines claimed the island of Sabah, and Malaysia could have said we will not talk until the Philippines withdraws its claim. Now everyone has forgotten about it. ASEAN’s biggest strength is its culture of pragmatism. We look for solutions. Many said we should not have admitted Myanmar as it was ruled by the military. But we admitted Myanmar, and over time, it changed. So countries can change their behaviour because they become part of a regional coalition.
Another challenge to SAARC has come from China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), where except for India and Bhutan, every South Asian country has joined. How can India counter China’s money power in the region?
•The best way for India to counter China’s influence in South Asia is..to increase India’s influence in South Asia. In theory, India should be in a much better position to have better relations with every SAARC country than China has. Even if you leave aside Pakistan, which is a dysfunctional relationship, there is so much in common with every country in the region. If you look at China and Taiwan, they both claim to be the same country, and yet they have a massive trade and investment relationship. So while technically they may be inimical to each other, economically they are practically fraternal. This is what India must do with Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives etc. Integrate them so closely economically, that they will always have to consider India’s views.
It sounds easier said than done.
•A: You know, I actually said ASEAN was created because of three 4-letter words, not just Fear, but also Luck and Golf (laughs). Seriously, it is important for leaders and officials of countries to spend time together, because that is an important way to understand our commonalities and to break down the animosities that two countries feel. In addition, as the biggest country in the region, India should study Indonesia’s role in ASEAN. President Suharto was wise enough to say, we will let the smaller countries of ASEAN run the group, and took a backseat, and that is something India could try to do. Maybe sometimes that group will take decisions you don’t like, but eventually the group will come closer together.
📰 Padmaavat order will not be recalled, declares SC
‘A 100 or 200 people cannot take to the streets and seek a ban’
•The Supreme Court declined a plea by Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh governments to modify its decision to allow film 'Padmaavat' to be screened in theatres.
•The State governments approached the apex court to convey the apprehensionsthat the screening of the movie would trigger large-scale violence by caste groups, beyond the control of the law enforcement apparatus.
•But the court stood firm by the right to creative speech and expression, putting the onus squarely on the State governments to take measures to protect the movie, its artistes and the public who come to watch it in the theatres.
•"Our order is to be complied by one and all. A 100 or 200 people cannot take to the streets and demand the ban of a movie. It is unthinkable. The Supreme Court has passed an order. These people better abide by it," Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, heading a three-judge Bench, put his foot down on the entreaties made by the States for a return to prohibition on the screening.
•Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observes there is "no way the court would back down". "Otherwise, these people will make a virtue of creating trouble. They will first create trouble and then make a virtue of creating trouble," Justice Chandrachud observed.
•Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the States did not want to adopt an "ostrich-like approach" to the violence. "Trouble already exists," Mr. Mehta submitted.
•When the hearing commenced, Mr. Mehta, for Rajasthan and Madha Pradesh, said the caste groups should be first allowed to have their say in court.
•"Why? You have come to the Supreme Court. You start by saying what you want," Chief Justice Misra cut in.
•When finally, Khatriya community's counsel had his chance to submit, he termed Padmaavat a "distortuon of history" and an unfair and emotionally draining act on a community which has several of its members guarding the Border.
•"There is a disclaimer in the film. It says the movie is not a portrayal of history. You please educate your members about what a disclaimer is," Justice A.M. Khanwilkar replied drily.
•Justice Chandachud, at the outset of the hearing pointed to paragraph nine of the States' application. The paragraph said violence continues before and after the January 18 order of the Supreme Court to allow the screening of the movie. The violence is despite the States' duty and obligation to ensure public order.
•"What is the meaning of this paragraph? How can we entertain this?" Justice Chandrachud asked Mr. Mehta.
•"Paragraph does not exist. Please forget it," Mr. Mehta submitted.
•"If this paragraph does not exist, your application does not exist," Justice Chandrachud retorted.
•"If we understand your intention. Your prayer is 'please allow us to ban the movie again'. We are not inclined to modify our order," Chief Justice Misra addressed Mr. Mehta.
•The States had invoked Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act of 1952 to argue that the law provided the State to finally decide whether exhibition of a movie may trigger public unrest.
•Earlier, Gujarat and Rajasthan had issued notifications on January 5 and 17, respectively, prohibiting the screening of the Censor Board-certified film. Haryana had in-principle agreed to a ban on exhibition. Madhya Pradesh had made statements that they intend to ban the screening of the movie in theatres. The movie is scheduled for nationwide release on January 25.
SC stay
•On January 18, the Supreme Court stayed attempts by four States to prohibit the screening of the film.
•This was done after Viacom 18, the movie's producers, approached it. The court had further restrained all States from passing such prohibitory orders against the exhibition of the film.
•The apex court had emphasised that it was "the duty and obligation of the State to maintain law and order".
•The Bench had made it clear that "once the Parliament has conferred the responsibility and power on a statutory Board and the Board has certified the film, non-exhibition of the film by States is contrary to statutory provisions".
•The film is based on the saga of historic battle of 13th century between Maharaja Ratan Singh and his army of Mewar and Sultan Alauddin Khilji of Delhi.
•“There is a disclaimer in the film. It says the movie is not a portrayal of history. You please educate your members about what a disclaimer is,” Justice A.M. Khanwilkar said.
•Justice Chandrachud, at the outset of the hearing, pointed to paragraph nine of the States’ application. The paragraph said violence continues before and after the January 18 order of the Supreme Court to allow the screening of the movie. The violence is despite the States’ duty and obligation to ensure public order.
•“What is the meaning of this paragraph? How can we entertain this?” Justice Chandrachud asked Mr. Mehta.
•“Paragraph does not exist. Please forget it,” Mr. Mehta submitted.
•“If this paragraph does not exist, your application does not exist,” Justice Chandrachud retorted.
•“If we understand your intention, your prayer is ‘please allow us to ban the movie again.’ We are not inclined to modify our order,” Chief Justice Misra addressed Mr. Mehta.
•The States had invoked Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act of 1952 to argue that the law provided the State to finally decide whether exhibition of a movie may trigger public unrest.
•Earlier, Gujarat and Rajasthan had issued notifications on January 5 and 17, respectively, prohibiting the screening of the Censor Board-certified film. Haryana had in-principle agreed to a ban on exhibition. Madhya Pradesh had made statements that they intend to ban the screening of the movie, scheduled for nationwide release on January 25.
•On January 18, the Supreme Court stayed attempts by four States to prohibit the screening of the film.
•This was done after Viacom 18, the producers, approached it. The court had further restrained all States from passing such prohibitory orders against the exhibition of the film.
•The apex court had emphasised that it was “the duty and obligation of the State to maintain law and order.”
•The Bench said that “once Parliament has conferred the responsibility and power on a statutory Board and the Board has certified the film, non-exhibition of the film by States is contrary to statutory provisions.”
•The film is based on the saga of the 13th century battle between Maharaja Ratan Singh and his army of Mewar and Sultan Alauddin Khilji of Delhi.
📰 Don’t probe Hadiya’s choice of partner: Supreme Court
"The court cannot question her choice," said the Chief Justice.
•The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to stay away from prying into Hadiya's choice to marry Shafin Jahan.
•The apex court was hearing an oral request made by Jahan, the man who married Hadiya, a homoeopathy student in her mid-twenties. Hadiya had converted from Hinduism to Islam before marrying Jahan.
•The NIA had argued in the Supreme Court that she was indoctrinated, radicalised and brainwashed. The marriage was a device to entrap her. Both NIA and Hadiya's father, Asokan K.M., claimed Jahan was a recruiter for radical groups.
•"You can investigate any of the aspects, but you cannot investigate the marital aspect... you cannot investigate whether she married a good person or a bad person. That's her choice," Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra observed.
•“Again, whether she made a good choice or bad choice in a husband, only she knows. Court cannot question her choice,” the Chief Justice observed.
•Marriage and our choice of a life partner should be segregated from any “criminal conspiracies, criminal attributives and actions.”
•Jahan, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Haris Beeran, asked Hadiya to be impleaded as a respondent in the Supreme Court. A Bench led by the CJI agreed to his request.
•“Let them (NIA) investigate him (Jahan). But you cannot question the marriage. Only she (Hadiya) has the right to question her marriage,” Chief Justice Misra observed.
•The court was responding to a submission by Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh, for NIA, that the “investigation is substantially completed”.
•The Bench said it is not bothered by the investigation.
•The apex court made it clear that it would only go into the question of law as to whether the Kerala High Court could have annulled the marriage in a habeas corpus petition.
•The High Court had annulled the marriage on a habeas corpus petition filed by Asokan and transferred her into his custody. She remained there for several months before the Supreme Court summoned her in person on Novemner 27. After speaking to her, the court allowed her to rejoin college in Salem to complete her 11-month-long internship while staying in the college hostel.
•“We are not concerned with the investigation or anything else. We are only concerned with the question if a high court can nullify a marriage in a habeas corpus petition. The heart of the matter is if a marriage cannot be nullified, it cannot be investigated also,” Chief Justice Misra repeated.
•Hadiya’s father said considering the marriage in isolation without a thought about the build-up to it was like “putting the cart before the horse”.
•“She is an adult. She appeared in court here and said she is married. What can the court do?” Chief Justice Misra asked.
•“But this marriage was a device to legitimise the illegal confinement she was under,” advocate Madhavi Divan, for Asokan, submitted.
•“She is 24. How can you say she has to remain with X,Y,Z? She came to the Supreme Court that she does not want to go with you. Can we insist [that she go] with you now?” Chief Justice Misra asked Ms. Divan.
•The court scheduled the case for February 22.
📰 Constitute Mahanadi tribunal: Supreme Court
•The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Centre to set up a tribunal within a month to resolve the long-standing dispute between Odisha and Chhattisgarh over the sharing of Mahanadi water.
•A Bench of Justices S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao asked the Centre to constitute the tribunal and said that all pending issues can be raised before it. The court, however, refused to grant any stay as sought by Odisha government on the seven pick up weirs across the Mahanadi river, which flows through Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Odisha, before pouring into the Bay of Bengal.
•Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Odisha government, said there cannot be any negotiation on the issue and the only way the dispute can be resolved is through the constitution of a tribunal.
📰 Reform with caution — on criminal justice system
The Centre must act on the Malimath report on criminal law revamp, but with due care
•It is not a bad idea to revisit old committee reports with a view to considering their possible implementation. However, such an exercise must be pursued with care and caution. The Centre’s decision to revisit the 2003 report of the Justice V.S. Malimath Committee on reforming the criminal justice system needs to be examined through the prism of civil rights. It includes controversial recommendations such as making confessions to a senior police officer admissible as evidence, and diluting the standard of proof required for a criminal conviction. It also contains valuable suggestions to revamp the administration of criminal law, covering the entire gamut of the justice system from investigation to sentencing, from matters of policy to the nuances of criminal procedure and the law of evidence. The committee made 158 recommendations, and since then some of these have become law. Its suggestion on permitting videography of statements has been implemented. The definition of rape has been expanded and new offences against women have been added. Its advocacy of substantial witness protection has not been realised, but victim compensation is now part of law. The Centre would do well to ignore the recommendations relating to making confessions to high-ranking officers admissible, and increasing the period of police custody from 15 to 30 days. These provisions were available only in anti-terrorism laws that are now no more in force. There is no need to bring them into general criminal laws.
•The Malimath report suggests a standard of proof lower than the current ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard. It moots a ‘clear and convincing’ standard, that is, it is enough if the court is convinced that something is true. Such a measure would have adverse implications for suspects, and requires considerable deliberation. There is some understandable disquiet about the state of criminal justice administration in the country and there is a crying need for a wide range of reforms. As the Madhava Menon Committee’s ‘Draft National Policy on Criminal Justice’ (2007) noted, such popular dissatisfaction arises from the low rate of conviction, the apparent role of money and influence in the outcome of cases, delayed and denied justice, lack of protection to witnesses and inadequate attention to crime victims. The widespread perception that there is corruption on the one hand and a deep nexus between crime syndicates and politicians on the other, has added to the erosion of public confidence in the justice delivery system. Despite all these considerations, any move to make substantive changes in the way criminal justice is administered will have to be done with great circumspection, lest vital constitutional safeguards against abuse of police and judicial powers are violated in the process. In the name of revamping the law, investigation and trial should not be altered in a way that undermines the principles on which the justice system was founded.
📰 Making our roads safe
The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2017, will rectify systemic issues
•The process of introducing legislation for road safety has been in the making for the past four years. The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha in 2017. If passed by the Rajya Sabha, it will be the first of its kind to extensively reform existing legislation on road safety, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Amendment Bill is robust and rectifies several systemic issues by providing for a uniform driver licensing system, protection of children and vulnerable road users, rationalising penalties, and much more.
Going digital
•The World Health Organisation (WHO) points out that for effective road safety management, it is imperative to have an institutionalised and sustainable data system. This includes information pertaining to drivers, such as types of licences held and a record of violation of traffic laws. The driver licensing system in India controls and filters the number and quality of drivers on the road. Currently, the procedure is largely manual, while the number of licences issued per year is over a crore. The inefficiencies of a predominantly manual system, given the scale of licences issued every year, results in lakhs of licences being issued without the prescribed checks and balances. In the absence of a central registry, often multiple licences are held by one person for different States. Low penalties for licensing offences allow erring drivers to be behind the wheel and get away with life-threatening violations.
•The Bill addresses each of these challenges by introducing technology in the licensing procedure. A digitised, uniform and centralised driver licensing system will go a long way in ensuring ease of access, efficiency and transparency in the filtering process.
•The Bill also proposes to introduce digitisation in the monitoring and enforcement of traffic laws. Electronic monitoring and enforcement can already be seen in practice in Kerala. The State has a ‘city surveillance and traffic monitoring system’, and automated traffic enforcement systems to detect traffic light violations as well as speeding. The enactment of the Bill will facilitate the replication and creation of such digitised systems for all other States.
Children in focus
•Since 2008, in India, over 55,000 children have lost their lives in road accidents. In 2016 alone, 7% of road crash deaths were attributed to children below 18 years. The WHO asserts that using child-restraint systems in vehicles decreases the risk of death in a crash by about 70% for infants and 54-80% for small children. In the current piece of legislation, there is no provision for protection of children, and this lacuna has been addressed for the first time.
•The Bill proposes to mandate the use of protective headgear by every person above the age of four driving, riding or being carried on a two-wheeler. It provides for measures to be laid down for the safety of children below the age of four. Similarly, the Bill mandates the use of safety belts and child restraints for those under 14 years and introduces a fine of ₹1,000 for the driver or guardian for the violation of the same.
Penalties
•For decades, penalties for behaviour that results in fatalities and grievous injuries have remained minimal, largely unrevised, and, consequently, have failed to deter violators. This Bill promises to rationalise these fines. For instance, the penalty for drunk driving has been increased to ₹10,000 for the first offence and ₹15,000 for the subsequent one.
•For exceeding lawful speeds, the penalty has been increased to ₹1,000 for light motor vehicles and ₹2,000-4,000 for medium and heavy motor vehicles. For the non-use of helmets and seat belts, the fines have been increased from ₹100 to ₹1,000.
•As a signatory to the Brasilia Declaration on Road Safety, India has committed to reducing, by 2020, the number of road crash fatalities and serious injuries by 50%. This will be impossible to achieve if the sole statute governing road safety in India, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not overhauled. The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2017, will serve as the first and most essential step towards fulfilling this vision.
📰 CPI(M) plans impeachment motion against CJI
Yechury says party is in discussion with other Opposition parties on the possibility of moving it in the budget session
•CPI(M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury said here on Tuesday that the party was trying to build a consensus on moving an impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra in the budget session of Parliament.
•“Looks like the crisis is not resolved yet, so we need to intervene and it’s time to play the role of the legislature. We are discussing with Opposition parties the possibility of an impeachment motion against the CJI in the budget session,” Mr. Yechury said.
•On January 12, four senior-most Supreme Court judges held a press conference raising questions on “selective” allocation of cases to certain Benches. Though, the judges did not spell it out clearly, inferences have been drawn that Supreme Court judges allegedly “close” to the ruling dispensation have been allotted critical cases.
•Sources say Mr. Yechury has reached out to the Congress and the NCP for now and will speak to others soon. The Congress, however, remains mum on the issue.
‘Preliminary stage’
•“The talks are at a preliminary stage; we were expecting that the judiciary will be able to sort out the issue within themselves. However, that has not happened. So we need to explore what role we can play,” Tariq Anwar, NCP MP, told The Hindu. On the question whether the Opposition will have enough numbers to get the motion through, he said the discussions had not reached that stage.
•By the rules, signatures of 50 MPs are required to move a motion of impeachment. “Such a motion can’t be moved unless the Congress with its 57 members is too on board. Moreover, the CJI is retiring in October. It is a messy process and there is only a bleak chance that we will be successful,” a Trinamool Congress leader said. The party has refused to divulge its position.
Floor strategy
•“It is too early to comment on the issue. Only when the Opposition sits together for a floor strategy meeting ahead of the budget session and discusses it, can we say anything. We would not want the Opposition to appear fractured on the issue,” a senior Congress leader said.
•The CPI(M) has seven members in the Rajya Sabha and nine in the Lok Sabha. The budget session begins on January 29, and the Union Budget will be presented on February 1.
📰 INSPIRE: a scheme that draws scientists but leaves them in the lurch
Tardy funds disbursal, inadequate jobs, harassment mars Centre’s INSPIRE
•A scholarship scheme managed by the Centre’s Department of Science and Technology (DST) to help young, talented scientists embark on independent research careers at Indian labs is drawing flak with complaints of harassment, tardy fund disbursal and concerns that the scheme hasn’t catalysed enough jobs.
•The INSPIRE (Innovation in Science Pursuit for Inspired Research) Faculty scheme, as it’s called, selects promising research scholars under 32 and offers them a salary of ₹80,000 a month as well as an annual research grant worth ₹7 lakh to work at a university of their choice for five years.
•It was conceived in 2008 amid concerns that not enough talented students were opting for research careers in basic sciences and were being lured away by higher salaries in banking, information technology and management.
•Positioned as an “Assured Opportunity for Research Career,” the INSPIRE Faculty scheme envisioned that given 5 years of financial security and academic freedom these researchers would prove their mettle at these universities and, at their discretion, be eventually recruited as full-time faculty.
•The candidates are selected via a three-stage interview by the Indian National Science Academy, and of the 10,919 applications since the scheme’s inception in 2011, only 1,234 or about 11%, have been offered the fellowship, as per INSPIRE’s latest figures. Of these 951 joined and as of December only 394 or about 40% have landed permanent faculty positions. These encompass a range of institutions from the Indian Institutes of Technology, CSIR labs as well as State and Centrally-funded universities.
‘Denied opportunities’
•Of the 557 jobless, Vimal Bharadwaj, 38, is particularly miffed. He was among the first batch of scientists selected in 2011 after a doctorate in Chemistry from the Indian Institute of Technology, Ropar. He opted to continue at the same institute on the fellowship in the Chemistry department. However, he alleged, he was never treated “on par” with peers, denied opportunities to compete for faculty positions and was repeatedly ask to clear out his work-station by senior department members.
•In a letter to the DST’s Joint Secretary, Renu Jain, he complained about having to “struggle for his rights” including “…recruiting a Ph.D. student, project student, accessing lab space and common research facilities, consideration for permanent position and most important the congenial environment to work.”
•According to the letter seen by The Hindu, he also accused the DST of being “non serious about implementation of the scheme” because it released the salary and research funds so late every year, that it became impossible to spend the money before the close of the financial year. “It’s like being given a year’s quota of rice all at once and being asked to consume it in 3 months,” Mr. Bharadwaj told The Hindu in a phone conversation.
•He claimed that this was in spite of his performancebeing marked “Very Good” in evaluations by the DST.
•The Hindu spoke to several other recipients of the scholarship who are dissatisfied with how things have unfolded for them. A person who didn’t want his name and institution disclosed as he was still a recipient of the fellowshipsaid he quit pursuing a fellowship in Germany and “was led to believe” that he’d land a job with the INSPIRE scheme. “As an INSPIRE fellow, I was even given an award by the President of India and now, am jobless and don’t know how I will survive the next year,” he said. “The contract between DST and host institutes explicitly states that a congenial environment and consideration for faculty positions be provided. That hasn’t been my experience.”
•The DST claimed the programme is a success. Of the 238 fellows selected in 2011 and 2012 or those who’ve reached the end of the fellowship, 143 or about 60% have got full-time jobs. “Globally, 5%-10% of the doctoral researchers get permanent positions… this is by comparison an excellent turnout,” said Ashutosh Sharma, Secretary, DST. “However we cannot force universities to recruit students.” A “combination of circumstances” — the Fellow’s ability to gel with the institute’s functioning, their performance and luck played a role in a candidate’s success.
•“I’m aware that some faculty are unhappy but ultimately 100% placement is impossible and it has always been explicitly made clear that the fellowship isn’t a guarantee of employment,” he added. That said, the DST, in a letter in August to institutes who host INSPIRE faculty, expressed “serious concern” that some hadn’t been recruited.
•Mukopadhyay, a senior DST administrator, who wrote that letter, told The Hindu there were meetings called with administrators at several universities to be more sensitive to the concerns of these researchers. Also changes had been made to ensure that all pending financial dues were cleared by January.
•According to the latest available statistics from the government, the number of science Ph.Ds is on the rise. In 2010-2011 5,271 doctoral degrees in science were awarded and this rose to 7,617 in 2014-2015. Relative to doctoral degrees awarded in all fields, however, there was a dip to 50% from 63.5% in the same period partly due to a rise in engineering-and-technology Ph.Ds to 28% from 20% in the same period.
Systemic problem
•This, even as several vacancies abound in colleges. As per the University Grants Commission, of the 9,878 Assistant Professorpositions2,457 are vacant. Gautam Desiraju, a professor of chemistry, at the Indian Institute of Science, said there was a “systemic problem” in how the scheme had unfolded over the years. Universities frequently had opaque hiring procedures and “corruption” was rife at several State universities. Moreover, many leading institutions — including the IITs — didn’t recruit entry-level professors over 35, further queering the pitch for a new INSPIRE faculty member.
📰 A risky recovery — on IMF's global growth predictions
Countries will need to move beyond monetary stimulus to boost their economies
•A broad-based recovery in global growth may be gathering steam, but the price the world will have to pay for it is still unknown. According to the IMF’s January update of the World Economic Outlook, the global economy is all set to clock its best growth rate in seven years in 2018 following a pick-up since mid-2016. The IMF estimated that the global economy could accelerate to 3.9% in both 2018 and 2019, an upward revision of 0.2 percentage point over its previous estimates in October for both years, boosted by a cyclical recovery in global growth and the historic tax cuts in the U.S. India’s economy is projected to grow at 7.4% during the financial year 2019, and at an even faster pace of 7.8% the following year. If the IMF’s predictions come true, India will be the fastest-growing major economy next year as China’s growth is expected to slow from 6.6% this year to 6.4% in 2019. What comes as a further surprise is the upward revision in growth forecasts for many countries in Europe, thanks to stronger demand. The IMF, however, was not oblivious to the threats that could severely derail the broad-based economic recovery. In particular, it warned about the “troubling” rise in debt levels across countries, including the U.S., which could pose a huge risk to financial stability and drag down economic growth.
•It is no secret that since the 2008 financial crisis the global economy has been propped up mainly by the unprecedented easy money policies adopted by global central banks. In fact, the absence of substantial structural reforms to complement central bank stimulus measures has been another feature of the present global economic recovery. Such a recovery comes with the inherent risk of being derailed whenever easy monetary conditions that fuelled it cease to exist. While central banks until now have been careful not to spook markets with the prospect of higher interest rates, it is unlikely that they can keep markets calm forever. As the IMF has pointed out, the possible end to the era of abundant liquidity and debt-fuelled economic activity is likely to cause disruption by affecting asset prices. As interest rates reach higher levels, it is likely to also expose the various real economic distortions created by a low interest rate policy, particularly across borders. While it is hard to predict the next downturn, it seems the day of reckoning may not be too far as consumer price inflation begins to push central banks to rethink their dovish stance. The IMF is right to urge countries to make use of the current rosy conditions to enact useful structural reforms. It is time countries recognise that monetary policy alone won’t solve all growth problems.
📰 India may be in top 3 in 25 years: Jaitley
‘Global integration has brought more resources’
•India will likely be among the top three economies in the world in the next 25 years, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said on Tuesday, adding that India has shown an ability to grow during adversity.
•“India has moved from the seventh largest to the fifth largest economy,” Mr. Jaitley said, while delivering the valedictory speech at the ASEAN-India Business and Investment Meet. “Unquestionably, in the period of 25 years, India would perhaps be one of the three largest economies in the world. And India has already demonstrated its capacity to grow during adversity.”
•“The Prime Minister, in his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, said that one of the three global challenges is that the world has started increasingly looking inwards, and that’s where the Prime Minister pointed out that India stands out as an exception,” Mr. Jaitley added. “The confidence of the new India is that it is getting more globally integrated and this opening out in terms of trade and investment has certainly brought not only additional resources but significantly improved upon India’s competitive strengths.”
•The Finance Minister said countries such as Malaysia, Vietnam, Philippines, and Indonesia, were now significantly picking up and opening up to investment.
•“Therefore, India and the ASEAN represents the aspirational world,” Mr. Jaitley said. “This aspirational world houses two billion people and trade has the capacity to give a necessary impetus to the economy.”
•“Our mutual experience has been that more opening up means more investment, and more investment creates more economic activity, more jobs, more prosperity,” he added. “Having benefited of the last few decades, it is obvious that in the next 2.5 decades this very sizeable part of the global population which had conventionally lagged behind, which is today aspirational and has demonstrated a capacity to reform even as rest of the world was looking inwards, I am sure will be able to expand its mutual trade.”
•Mr Jaitley said that India offered a great opportunity for investment, especially in the infrastructure sector, since, he said, there was a large infrastructure deficit in the country.
•“We want India’s domestic manufacturing to grow,” he added. “In services such as healthcare, education or tourism, we offer a great potential in terms of investment. And our own industry has acquired the confidence where they are looking outward and investing where the prospects are good.”
📰 Protectionism is as dangerous as terrorism and climate change, says Modi
At World Economic Forum’s annual summit in Davos, he decries new trade barriers.
•Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday sent out a strong message against protectionism and inward-focused economic policies, saying such tendencies could be as dangerous as terrorism and climate change.
•Mr. Modi, who became the first Indian Prime Minister to address the World Economic Forum’s annual summit here in two decades, also talked terrorism, a major grave concerns facing the world. What was worse was people saying there was a difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ terror. It was painful to see some youngsters getting radicalised, he said.
•In an almost hour-long speech in Hindi, he sought to hard sell India as an investment destination, saying those wanting wealth with wellness and peace with prosperity should come to the country.
‘heaven of freedom’
•Mr. Modi emphasised that a predictable, stable, transparent and progressive India was good news in an otherwise uncertain global environment. “Let us create a ‘heaven of freedom’, where there is cooperation and not division, fractures,” he said.
•India was proud of its democracy and diversity and the country had always contributed to global peace as well as promoted values of integration and unity, he said.
•Seen as an apparent reference to policies like 'America First', especially since U.S. President Donald Trump would be coming to Davos later this week, Mr. Modi said, “Many countries are becoming inward focused and globalisation is shrinking and such tendencies can’t be considered lesser risk than terrorism or climate change.”
•Protectionism is rearing its ugly head and there is risk of new tariff and non-tariff barriers coming up, the Prime Minister said, as he mentioned that division was not the solution to this problem of anti-globalisation.
•While noting that in an interconnected world, globalisation was losing its lustre, he wondered, “Do global organisations created after the Second World War really reflect the aspirations and dreams of mankind today? With respect to the developing countries there is a very big gap.”
