📰 26-week maternity leave for women contract employees
High Court says they are entitled to get leave on a par with govt employees
•In a significant verdict, the Kerala High Court has ruled that women contract employees working in government funded projects are entitled to 26 weeks of maternity leave as applicable to women employees under the service rules.
•Justice Anu Sivaraman made the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by P.V. Rakhi and other resource teachers working under the inclusive Education for Disabled Secondary Stage under the Rashtriya Madhyamic Siksha Abhiyan of the MHRD.
•The court pointed out that the petitioners were also admittedly women employees working on a contract basis under the State-funded project.
•The enhanced maternity leave to women employees was undoubtedly a piece of welfare legislation which was intended to give women equal opportunities in public employment. Besides, it was not in dispute that women employees directly employed by the government would be entitled to 180 days of maternity leave, going by the provisions of the KSR.
•The court further observed that the contention of the State government that the contract employees under the projects were entitled only to 90 days of maternity leave could not be countenanced, since it would amount to discrimination against women employees only for the reason that they were engaged in projects in contractual capacities, the court observed.
•The State government contended that the petitioners were not entitled to 26 weeks of maternity leave as provided in the Maternity Benefit Act or 180 days of leaves provided under the Kerala Service Rules, as the petitioners were contract employees under a project under the centrally-sponsored scheme.
•It was also submitted that even teachers under the scheme as well as under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan were entitled only to three months of maternity leave.
•The court also observed that the inalienable obligations of maternity “should not and cannot be a reason to deny equal opportunities to women employees”.
•The court termed as untenable the State government’s submission that the contractual appointment of the petitioners had a duration of only one year and the grant of six months paid leave would obliterate the benefit to the project of engagement as the petitioners were continuing in service on the basis of the successive extensions of the contracts.
•The court directed the State government to grant 26 weeks of maternity leave to the petitioners.
📰 A move to equivalence
After the agreement with France, India must hold bilateral talks for degree recognition with other countries
•Several Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) and agreements were signed between France and India recently on French President Emmanuel Macron’s visit. The most important of these was the landmark agreement signed at the ‘Knowledge Summit’ between the two countries on mutual recognition of educational qualifications, the first of its kind. This provides an opportunity for India to refine its policy on higher education by inking such pacts with other countries, thereby seamlessly integrating the Indian student community across the world.
Current policy framework
•According to government data, there were an estimated 5 lakh Indian students pursuing degrees in higher education abroad in 2017, mostly in the U.S., the U.K., and the European Union. However, it is ironical that many who are trained at the best universities abroad are unable to share their expertise in Indian universities. This can be principally attributed to the problem of degree recognition.
•In the current policy framework, the issue of recognition of academic qualifications is dealt with on a case-by-case basis by the Association of Indian Universities (AIU), which provides Indian students with equivalence certificates based on eligibility requirements and the duration of courses. The agreement with France is the first such MoU where the two countries have reached a consensus despite a difference in the duration of their various academic programmes. This means that even a one-year master’s degree will be recognised here. In the current system, if a person has a postgraduate degree from abroad, an equivalence certificate is essential to pursue a PhD or qualify for a career in academia through the Junior Research Fellowship-National Eligibility Test (JRF-NET). Returnee students from foreign universities need to apply for equivalence certificates, but students who hold one-year degrees from abroad are immediately ousted from the Indian system. In this way, scholars are penalised for studying at world-class institutions in their area of interest in which Indian universities have very little to offer. This ad hoc arrangement for recognition of degrees has discouraged students from pursuing research careers in India. Rather, it precipitates their departure to other global destinations. In other words, this assumes the shape of a state-sponsored colonial policy of brain drain.
Robust policy for higher education
•This case-by-case approach in recognising degrees isn’t a robust policy, particularly for improving standards of higher education. Herein lies the importance of countries across the world to move away from diplomatic constraints and maintain an image of exceptionalism when it comes to exchanging and disseminating knowledge. However, dependence on diplomatic mechanisms without a robust policy for recognising degrees would mean that Indian universities will continue to lag behind world standards. The aim of establishing “world-class” institutions in India cannot materialise without first utilising the knowledge and expertise that their own Indian scholars have to offer.
•The MoU between France and India means that India is now in the position to hold bilateral talks for degree recognition with other countries too, such as the U.K. with which India shares deep historical ties. According to the latest data furnished by the U.K. Higher Education Statistics Agency, in 2016-17, 16,550 Indian students went to the U.K. for higher studies. Of these, 70-80% went for postgraduate programmes mainly with a one-year duration. Despite such a strong case for mutual recognition, students are left in the lurch. The earlier provision of a six-month bridge course introduced by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) in 2013 to ensure recognition of one-year master’s degrees from the U.K. has been discontinued by the current government. It’s not just the MA degree, the two-year MPhil courses from some of the best universities are also not recognised as equivalent to even a lower-level master’s degree in India, if the student does not possess a two-year master’s degree before the MPhil. This is despite the fact that some of these degrees have been partially or fully supported by the Indian government with a condition to revert and contribute to their home country.
•The bilateral pact with France is a good start that needs to be taken forward.
📰 Situation not ripe for pilgrimage, Pakistan told
Row over denial of visas to pilgrims
•Prevailing circumstances are not suitable for pilgrimage between India and Pakistan, official sources said on Monday after Islamabad accused Delhi of denying visas to pilgrims who wanted to attend the annual festivities at the world famous sufi shrine of Ajmer. These comments coincided with the summoning of Pakistan’s Deputy High Commissioner by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in protest against heavy firing by the Pakistani forces.
•“Such visits are facilitated and promoted and visas granted after following due procedures. However, from time to time, such visits cannot take place in view of the prevailing circumstances and absence of requisite security clearances,” sources said to the media.
•India’s response came after Pakistan said that India violated a 1974 bilateral protocol by denying visas to pilgrims from who wanted to visit the famed shrine in Ajmer.
•“Pakistan notes with deep disappointment the non-issuance of visas by India for the visit of the 503 Pakistani Zaireen [pilgrims] to participate in the Urs of Hazrat Khawaja Moinuddin Chishti (RA) at Ajmer Sharif, India from March 19-29, 2018. The visit was to take place under the 1974 Pakistan-India Protocol on Visits to Religious Shrines and is a regular annual feature,” a statement from the Pakistani Foreign Office (FO) spokesperson said.
•Pakistan’s allegation on non-issuance of visas came in the context of the ongoing problem between the diplomats on both sides which includes blocking of the portal of the Indian High Commission in Islamabad which disallows normal delivery of consular services.
•Pilgrims from Pakistan, the statement said, could not participate in the festivities of the shrine of saint Hazrat Khawaja Nizamuddin Aulia (RA) in Delhi from January 1-8, 2018, after India denied visas to them.
•India also summoned Deputy High Commissioner of Pakistan Syed Haider Shah and protested at the loss of lives of five civilians from Pakistani firing across the Line of Control in the Bhimber Gali Sector in Jammu and Kashmir.
•“The Pakistan side was also asked to end the support being given to cross-border infiltration of terrorists, including through covering fire,” a release said from the MEA said.
•Meanwhile, harassment of Indian diplomats continued in Islamabad, sources said. A note issued regarding this matter recorded that aggressive surveillance of Indian diplomats took place on Monday. “Pakistan has been requested to immediately investigate all these incidents and direct the relevant authorities to ensure they do not recur,”a source said.
📰 U.S. wants India on board to ease Rohingya crisis
Offers to work together to help Bangladesh with refugee camps ahead of the monsoon, which can flood the main camps in Cox’s Bazaar
•Amid growing worries about the coming monsoon that could flood a third of the main Rohingya camps in Cox’s Bazaar in Bangladesh, Washington has offered to partner with New Delhi on joint efforts to assist Bangladesh.
•Confirming the offer, a senior U.S. administration official said, “We think India also has an interest in seeing this situation resolved.”
•“We will look for ways to work with India to provide for the needs of the Rohingya in Bangladesh, but also to work together to create that pressure on Burma [Myanmar] to create the conditions required for their safe and voluntary return,” added the official, calling India a “like-minded” partner.
•The offer was made during a recent visit to the region by Deputy Assistant to U.S. President Donald Trump and the Director for South and Central Asia, Lisa Curtis, as well as Director for India and the Indian Ocean Basant Sanghera. Ms. Curtis, who travelled to Dhaka and Delhi during an extended visit that included Kabul and Islamabad, also visited the main Kutapalong-Balukhali camp in Bangladesh, which is now the world’s single largest refugee camp, housing about 600,000 people.
•The UN’s Inter-sector Coordination Group (ISCG) that runs all the camps in Bangladesh, has recently launched an appeal for $950 million for food and shelter for the next year, warning that monsoons that run from April to June and the cyclone season could seriously hamper relief efforts, forcing refugees to pack in even closer on higher ground, spreading the risk of diseases. Amongst the most immediate needs are about 16 million litres of safe water every day, 12,200 metric tons of food, while about 200 health centres, 50,000 toilets and about 5,000 classrooms need to be built, an ISCG statement said.
Meets Foreign Secretary
•After meeting officials of the UN Inter-sector Coordination Group (ISCG) and the Bangladesh government from March 1 to 4, the U.S. delegation met Indian Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale and other officials on March 5, in an unpublicised visit to Delhi. Mr. Gokhale met Ms. Curtis and State Department officials during his visit to Washington last week, where cooperation on Bangladesh was discussed.
•The Foreign Secretary is now expected to visit Dhaka in April, while a number of Ministers will visit Bangladesh in the next few months to “take the development partnership agenda to its conclusion”, an External Affairs Ministry official said.
•While the official accepted that the U.S. proposal for a joint effort to aid Bangladesh was being discussed at the Foreign Secretary level, the Ministry declined to comment on whether the U.S. and India would work on joint measures to “pressure” Myanmar to repatriate the Rohingya. While the U.S. has called the action of Myanmar authorities in driving nearly a million Rohingya men, women and children out of villages, a case of “ethnic cleansing” and threatened targeted sanctions against the officials responsible, India has been comparatively silent on the issue in an effort to keep its ties with Nay Pyi Taw intact.
•The U.S. proposal to India may be seen as an attempt to counter China that had last year brokered a repatriation agreement signed by Bangladesh and Myanmar. The agreement, however, is yet to be implemented.
📰 Treaty that backfired?
•The Shimla Agreement of 1972 was expected to be a milestone in India-Pakistan relations, for not only did it rend Pakistan asunder, but India also held 93,000 prisoners of war (POWs) who could constitute a major bargaining chip with Pakistan.
•India had three primary objectives at Shimla. First, a lasting solution to the Kashmir issue or, failing that, an agreement that would constrain Pakistan from involving third parties in discussions about the future of Kashmir. Second, it was hoped that the Agreement would allow for a new beginning in relations with Pakistan based upon Pakistan’s acceptance of the new balance of power. Third, it left open the possibility of achieving both these objectives without pushing Pakistan to the wall and creating a revanchist anti-India regime.
•There was a near-consensus among Indian policymakers that India must not pull a “Versailles” on Pakistan. A humiliated Pakistan, it was argued, would inevitably turn revanchist. This was the reason India did not force Pakistan to convert the ceasefire line in Kashmir into the international boundary when Pakistani President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto ruled out this option. It accepted the term Line of Control (LoC) instead, thus delinking it from UN resolutions and highlighting that Kashmir was a purely bilateral affair.
•India was inclined to return the POWs but was constrained from doing so because they had surrendered to the joint India-Bangladesh command and could not be returned without the latter’s concurrence. Dhaka made it clear that it would not return the POWs until Islamabad recognised Bangladesh, thus delaying the POWs’ return until 1974.
•However, despite its soft line on Kashmir and the POWs, India was unable to prevent the military from taking power in Islamabad in 1977 and executing Bhutto. General Zia-ul-Haq’s coup had a major bearing on India’s other objectives. Zia’s strategy was to use the Afghan insurgency in the 1980s to acquire sophisticated arms from the U.S. and induce Washington to ignore Pakistan’s clandestine quest for nuclear weapons. Pakistan’s acquisition of nuclear capability created a situation of deterrence negating India’s superiority in conventional power and instated de facto military parity between the two countries. The 1999 Kargil War validated the success of deterrence when India desisted from taking the war into Pakistani territory. Deterrence also provided the shield for the Pakistani military to take the “war” into Indian Kashmir through its proxies, the terrorist groups created and supported by the ISI. Nuclear weapons prevented India from retaliating on Pakistani territory.
•The Shimla Agreement did not fully achieve any of India’s objectives. If anything, it may have whetted the Pakistani military’s appetite to try to turn Kashmir into India’s Bangladesh.
📰 Protesting MPs again stall debate on no-trust motion
Rajya Sabha adjourns for the day without transacting any business
•The Lok Sabha could not take up the two no-confidence motions against the NDA government yet again on Monday, and was adjourned by Speaker Sumitra Mahajan for the day minutes after noon.
•With the Rajya Sabha, too, being adjourned for the day by Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu minutes after it met at 11 a.m., Parliament could not transact any business for yet another day in the second half of the budget session.
•Parliament has been adjourned amid protests for 11 days in a row, ever since it met on March 5 after the recess.
•Ms. Mahajan said at noon that she had received notices for no-confidence from Thota Narasimham (TDP), Jaidev Galla (TDP) and Y.V. Subba Reddy (YSR Congress Party) but added that the House should be in order for these to be taken up. “Since the House is not in order, I will not be able to bring it... I am sorry,” she said before adjourning the proceedings for the day.
•Just before the adjournment, Home Minister Rajnath Singh requested the cooperation of the members so that there could be a discussion on the no-confidence motion.
Adjournment motion
•The Speaker also decided not to accept any adjournment motion. Interestingly, the Congress’s Rajeev Satav had moved an adjournment motion for a discussion on special category status for Andhra Pradesh, an issue on which the TDP has broken with the NDA. Earlier, when the House met at 11 a.m., members of the TDP, the YSRCP, the AIADMK and the TRS protested in the Well. Congress and TMC members stood at seats and protested. The Speaker then adjourned the House till noon.
•When the House re-assembled, members of the AIADMK and the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) protested with placards in the Well, demanding the setting up of a Cauvery Management Board and an increase in reservation, respectively.
•MPs from the Congress, the CPI(M), the Samajwadi Party and the TMC then stood up at their seats to protest the Speaker’s decision not to take up the no-confidence motions.
•With the TDP also boycotting a lunch given by the Speaker, no end to the impasse in Parliament seemed to be in sight.
•In the Rajya Sabha, Andhra Pradesh parties, led by the TDP and K.V.P. Ramachandra Rao of the Congress, trooped into the Well, shouting slogans in support of special status for the State, while DMK and AIADMK members raised the Cauvery water issue.
•Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu repeatedly asked the members to allow the House to function and called for taking up listed zero hour mentions of issues of public importance.
•But with protests continuing, he adjourned the House for the day within 10 minutes of the commencement of proceedings.
•The Congress and TMC members stood at their seats and protested. The Speaker then adjourned the House till noon.
•When the House re-assembled, members from the AIADMK and Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) protested with placards in the Well of the House, demanding the setting up of a Cauvery Management Board and increase in reservation, respectively.
•MPs from the Congress, CPI(M), Samajwadi Party and TMC then stood up at their seats to protest the Speaker’s decision not to take up the no-confidence motions.
•In the Rajya Sabha, Andhra parties led by the TDP and K.V.P. Ramachandra Rao of the Congress, trooped into the Well shouting slogans for special status for the State while Tamil Nadu’s DMK and AIADMK raised the Cauvery water issue. Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu repeatedly asked members to allow the House to function and called for taking up listed zero hour mentions of issues of public importance.
•But with protests continuing, he adjourned the House for the day within 10 minutes of the commencement of proceedings.
📰 First step in a long journey
The National Medical Commission Bill seeks to make structural changes in an exploitative health-care system
•Even as the spotlight shifts to a “maha-panchayat” of doctors under the Indian Medical Association getting ready later this month to challenge the National Medical Commission (NMC) Bill, 2017 (now before a parliamentary standing committee), it is pertinent to look at the Bill’s highlights. Article 47 of the Constitution makes it clear that the state is duty-bound to improve public health, but India continues to face a health crisis, with an absolute shortage of and an inequitable presence of doctors and over-burdened hospitals.
•Although India has 10 lakh medical doctors, it needs 3,00,000 more in order to meet the World Health Organisation standard of the ideal doctor-population ratio. There is an 81% shortage of specialists in community health centres (CHC), the first point of contact for a patient with a specialist doctor. Those most affected by this are poor and rural patients who are then forced to consult quacks. Another fact is that 82.2% of providers of “modern medicine” in rural areas do not have a medical qualification. Rural India, which accounts for 69% of the population, faces another issue — only 21% of the country’s doctors serve them.
•The quality of the health-care experience too needs attention. It is ironic that, while India is a hub for medical tourism (in 2016, India issued 1.78 lakh medical visas), it is a common sight in government hospitals to have patients sleep in corridors waiting for their outpatient department appointments.
•The Bill, among other things, seeks to address these problems.
A commercialisation
•The insertion of Section 10A in the Indian Medical Council Act was followed by an exponential rise in the number of private medical colleges. This was encouraged as there was, and still is, a shortfall in the number of medical practitioners. However, the high capitation fees charged by these colleges can have a negative effect in terms of affordability of medical services.
•The regulatory authority has been unable to act despite the fact that over half the 60,000 medical students graduating every year are from private medical colleges.
•With corruption in the issuing of licences and regulatory requirements, many such academic institutions have a faculty of questionable standards, with obvious repercussions on the quality of education imparted.
•The Bill puts in place a mechanism to assess and rate medical colleges regularly, with a high monetary penalty for failure to comply with standards. Three such failures will result in the de-recognition of a college. There is also an enabling provision for the government to regulate the fees of up to 40% seats in private medical colleges. NITI Aayog data show that this amount falls in a Goldilocks zone, wherein the regulation can be made revenue neutral for the college by nominally raising fees for non-regulated students.
•The Bill goes a step further with a relaxation of the criteria for approving a college in specific cases. Currently, there is a blanket standard for establishing a medical college in India, which disregards the contextual realities in some areas such as difficult terrain or a low population density. For instance, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Nagaland do not have a single medical college.
Inverted pyramid
•India has a well-thought-out, three-tier public health-care system which rests on a base of sub-centres (SC) and primary health centres (PHCs) which take care of common ailments. Patients in need of specialist consultations go up the chain to secondary centres (CHCs) , or tertiary centres, which are district hospitals (DHs) or medical colleges. However, because of a poor vanguard, patients who can be treated at the “base” (SCs or PHCs), go straight to the “apex” (CHCs or DHs).
•Strengthening primary centres can ensure that the pyramid rests on its base again. With the government now planning to revamp 1,50,000 sub-centres into health and wellness centres by 2022, there is need for an equivalent number of mid-level providers. For this, India’s 7,70,000 AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy) practitioners can be tapped.
•The Bill has facilitated this by providing for a bridge course for AYUSH/non-allopathic doctors. This course, to be designed by a joint sitting of all medicinesystems, will ensure that non-allopathic doctors are trained to prescribe modern medicines in a limited way, within the scope of primary care. A parallel is the system of “barefoot doctors” in China.
•Thirteen States now permit AYUSH doctors to prescribe varying levels of allopathic care. The NMC Bill will bring in a homogenisation of such rules without diluting the varied systems of medicines.
•An added measure in the Bill prevents “cross-pathy” or the unqualified cross-over of health-care providers from one system to another. The Bill provides for two separate national registers – allopathic doctors, and AYUSH doctors who complete the bridge course, respectively.
•In the end, the Bill seeks to make structural changes in a stagnant and increasingly exploitative health-care system. While it is no magic bullet, it should be looked at as a step in the right direction.
📰 Centre plans law on online hate speech
Law Commission asked to make draft
•Moving a step ahead towards framing a distinct law for online “hate speech,” the Home Ministry has written to the Law Commission to prepare a draft law. The provisions will deal with offensive messages sent through social media and online messaging applications.
•The decision came after a committee headed by former Lok Sabha Secretary General T.K. Viswanathan submitted a report recommending stricter laws to curb online hate speech. The panel was formed after Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, was scrapped by the Supreme Court in 2015.
•The scrapped provision provided punishment for sending offensive messages through communication services.
Imperfect data
•A senior National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) official said there is no comprehensive data available on cases in which rumours and hate speech insinuations were made through social media and WhatsApp.
•“Such crimes are being registered under various other sections like sedition or other sections of the Information Technology Act. If the law is amended, it will provide us with the extent of the problem,” said the official. The 267th report of the Law Commission had recommended inserting additional provisions in Sections 153 505 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
RI and fine
•The proposed 153 C (b) IPC —‘incitement to hatred,’ recommended that the crime be punishable by two years imprisonment and ₹5,000 fine or both.
•The proposed law says, “Whoever on grounds of religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, place of birth, residence, language, disability or tribe, uses any means of communication to - (a) gravely threaten any person or group of persons with the intention to cause fear of injury or alarm; or (b) advocate hatred towards any person or group of persons that causes, or is likely to cause, incitement to commit an offence.”
•The other provision Section 505 A IPC said “Whoever in public intentionally….uses words, or displays any writing, sign, or other visible representation which is gravely threatening, or derogatory; (i) within the hearing or sight of a person, causing fear or alarm, or; (ii) with the intent to provoke the use of unlawful violence, against that person or another, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and/or fine up to ₹5000, or both.”
•A senior Home Ministry official said the Law Commission has been asked to include its earlier recommendations, and those from the Viswanathan and M.P. Bezbaruah committees, to give a “comprehensive draft law.”
•The Bezbaruah committee had proposed to insert two stricter anti-racial discrimination provisions in the IPC. Only four States Manipur, Meghalaya and Mizoram, Uttar Pradesh and three union territories — Andaman and Nicobar, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Lakshwadeep agreed to the Centre’s proposal.
•The proposed amendment section 153 C IPC (promoting or attempting to promote acts prejudicial to human dignity) would be punishable by five years and fine or both; Section 509 A IPC (word, gesture or act intended to insult member of a particular race) would be punishable by three years or fine or both.
•The official said once the Law Commission submits its final proposal, the States would be asked to send their comments since the proposed amendment falls under the Concurrent List of the Constitution. The Bezbaruah Committee was constituted by the Centre in February 2014 in the wake of a series of racial attacks on persons belonging to the northeast. Though the committee submitted its report in July 2014, the Home Ministry sent out letters to States for their opinion almost four years later, in February this year.
📰 Govt apathy towards construction workers puts Shakespearean tragedy to shame: SC
The Supreme Court found that ₹28,000 crore meant for the welfare of construction workers lie stagnant in State coffers.
•For millions of construction workers, mostly women and children, there is no social or economic justice to be given, the Supreme Court lamented in a 57-page judgment delivered on Monday.
•The Supreme Court found that ₹28,000 crore meant for the welfare of construction workers lie stagnant in State coffers. This is mainly because successive governments have failed to make use of this money for the health, safety or service conditions of unnamed and unsung construction workers, whom, the Supreme Court said, play a great role in “nation-building”.
•In their 57-page judgment, the Bench of Justices Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta rues that they can give the lot of construction workers only “symbolic justice” and nothing real or tangible.
•The judgment authored by Justice Lokur said the “total lack of concern and apathy on the part of the powers that be in doing anything substantial for the benefit of construction workers puts a Shakespearean tragedy to shame”.
•It said the State governments have been collecting welfare funds for construction workers since the Parliament passed the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act and the Building and Other Construction Workers‘ Welfare Cess Act, both in 1996.
•A total of ₹37,400 crore was collected for the benefit of construction workers over 22 years. Only ₹9,500 crore was utilised for their benefit.
•“What is being done with the remaining about ₹28,000 crore? Why is it that construction workers across the country are being denied the benefit of this enormous amount?” the Supreme Court asked, and itself responded that the “answers blow in the wind”.
•It records that the government estimate shows there are over 4.5 crore building and construction workers in the country. As of now, 2.8 crore have been registered under the 1996 laws for welfare.
•But there is no source for these statistics. The court dismisses these figures as mere “guesstimates”.
•It points out that even if the government wants to do good now by distributing the funds, it cannot as “some of these construction workers from the 1990s, and even later, may perhaps have unfortunately passed away or might be untraceable or old enough to deserve a pension”.
•“What makes the situation even worse is that many of the construction workers are believed to be women and at least some of them have small children to look after,” the court pointed out.
•The purpose of the laws of 1996 was to stop the exploitation of construction and ensure that their children do not suffer in terms of education, healthy living and dignity.
•Hoping that “someone, somewhere at some point” may under the gravity of the situation, the Supreme Court issued a slew of guidelines for the government, including identity cards of workers and providing them maternity benefits, minimum wages and even bring them under the MNREGA.
📰 Time to move beyond subsidies
The U.S. complaint to the WTO against India’s export promotion schemes is a wake-up call
•India’s export promotion schemes face an uncertain future after the United States Trade Representative (USTR) decided to challenge their legality in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The complaint of the USTR is that India is violating its commitments under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) using five of the most used export promotion schemes, namely, the export-oriented units scheme and sector-specific schemes, including electronics hardware technology parks scheme, merchandise exports from India scheme, export promotion capital goods scheme, special economic zones and duty-free import authorisation scheme.
Terms and conditions
•The main argument of the USTR is that India’s five export promotion schemes violate Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement, since the two provisions prohibit granting of export subsidies. Until 2015, India had the flexibility to use export subsidies as it is among the 20 developing countries included in Annex VII of the agreement that are allowed to use these subsidies as long as their per capita Gross National Product (GNP) had not crossed $1,000, at constant 1990 dollars, for three consecutive years. This provision applicable to the Annex VII countries was an exception to the special provisions provided to the developing countries (the so-called “special and differential treatment”) for phasing out export subsidies. Except Annex VII countries, all other developing countries were allowed a period of eight years from the entry into force of the WTO Agreement, i.e. 1995, to eliminate export subsidies.
•That India had crossed the $1,000 GNP per capita threshold in 2015 became known when the WTO Secretariat produced its calculations in 2017. An interpretation provided in a 2001 report of the Chairman of the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, which is also considered as the document providing the methodology for implementing Annex VII of the agreement, says that countries like India must eliminate export subsidies immediately upon crossing the above-mentioned threshold. In the Doha negotiations, India and several other Annex VII countries sought an amendment of the agreement so as to enable them to get a transition period.
Extension sought
•In a submission made in 2011, India, along with Bolivia, Egypt, Honduras, Nicaragua and Sri Lanka, argued that the Annex VII countries should be eligible to enjoy the provisions applicable to the other developing countries, namely, those that had GNP per capita above the threshold. The latter set of countries was required to phase out their export subsidies within eight years of joining the WTO. Additionally, they were allowed to enter into consultations with the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, not later than one year before the expiry of the transition period, to determine if there was a justification for the extension of this period, after examining all of their relevant economic, financial and development needs. But this proposal, like all other proposals made as a part of the Doha Round negotiations, remains unaddressed.
What needs to be done
•It needs to be pointed out that this is not the first time that the U.S. has put India’s export promotion schemes under the scanner; although this is the first instance when its Trade Administration has initiated a WTO dispute involving these schemes. In 2010, the U.S. had questioned the export incentives provided to the textiles and clothing sector as a whole, arguing that this sector had a share in global trade exceeding 3.25% and had therefore become export competitive. The U.S. pointed out that according to Article 27.5 of the SCM Agreement, any Annex VII developing country which had reached export competitiveness in one or more products must gradually phase out export subsidies on such products over a period of eight years. There was, therefore, considerable pressure on the Department of Commerce to consider its future strategies regarding export promotion schemes.
•It was perhaps the pressure that spoke when the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) of the National Democratic Alliance government unveiled in 2015 did some serious introspection about the future of export promotion schemes, the first time that any government had done so. The policymakers recognised that the extant WTO rules and those under negotiation were aimed at eventually phasing out export subsidies. The FTP took this as a pointer to the direction which export promotion efforts in the country must take in the future: a movement towards more fundamental systemic measures and away from incentives and subsidies. A similar note was sounded in the mid-term review of the FTP released in December 2017. This document was significant also because the Indian government showed its awareness that the country was at the verge of losing the benefits of being an Annex VII country.
•Contrary to the pronouncements made in the FTP, the government has continued to increase its outlays on export promotion schemes. In 2016-17, the total outlay on export promotion schemes was ₹58,600 crore, an increase of more than 28% in three years. During this period, the largest export promotion scheme in place currently, the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS), was introduced to promote exports by offsetting the infrastructural inefficiencies faced by exports of specified goods and to provide a level playing field. The scheme initially covered 4,914 tariff lines and was subsequently increased to cover 7,914 tariff lines. In recent months, there has been a two-fold expansion of the scheme: one, to enhance the MEIS rates of ready-made garments from 2% to 4%; and two, to increase the MEIS benefits for all labour-intensive and MSME sector products by 2%. These expansions in the scope of MEIS increased the total outlay on the scheme to nearly 60% over the level in 2016-17.
•The utility of export subsidies to promote exports has long been questioned. While the real impact of these subsidies has never been clearly measured, what has been quite evident is they have benefited the rent-seekers. There is, therefore, a strong case for the government to invest in trade-related infrastructure and trade facilitation measures, which can deliver tangible results on the export front.
📰 Taxman cometh for the military
Additional GST burden adds to woes of insufficient budgetary allocation
•Reeling under an insufficient budgetary allocation for modernisation, the military has a new financial challenge: the Goods and Services Tax. A recent report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence says the tax will result in an additional burden of ₹5,000 crore on the Army alone.
•“The additional burden is due to new taxation laws in the GST, which has come into force in the past one year and has not been taken care of in the new Budget,” the Army informed the committee.
•The Army told the panel that the capital allocation did not even cater to the payments for committed liabilities, or deals already contracted for.
•The Indian Air Force, which is heavily dependent on imports, is facing a similar situation.
•The IAF informed the committee that in 2016-17, it paid a custom duty of ₹943,62 crore, which went up to ₹1,614.28 crore in 2017-18.
•“This amount was not even reimbursed to the Air Force. The estimated outgo for 2018-19 is ₹1,726.98 crore,” the committee was informed.
•The funds allocated for committed liabilities is ₹33,100 crore against a projection of ₹72,482 crore.
•The Navy too is affected by the new tax regime, though to a less extent than the Army and the IAF.
•The Navy apprised the committee that in the revenue part, the tax burden due to the GST will go up from ₹427.28 crore last year to ₹800 crore this year.
•“The committee, therefore, desire that reasonability be shown in the budget for the Army, by way of providing for the additional burden to the extent of ₹5,000 crore due to the changes in the taxation laws,” the panel said in its observations in the report tabled in the Parliament last week.
•On the IAF’s deposition, the committee suggested that the Defence Ministry make appropriate allocation to address the issues of taxation in the Budget, keeping in mind the additional burden levied on the service.
📰 SEBI for phased roll-out of governance norms
‘To avoid genuine hurdles, only big firms may be required to comply in initial phase as opposed to all listed companies’
•The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) plans to introduce new corporate governance norms as proposed by the Kotak Committee, in a phased manner for listed entities, with only the bigger companies required to comply in the initial phase as opposed to all the listed companies.
•The board of the capital market regulator, which is scheduled to meet on March 28, will discuss the committee’s proposals before giving it the go-ahead for implementation for listed companies.
•“The aim is to implement the new norms with minimum disruption and so the top 200 or 500 companies would be initially mandated to comply with the new rules,” said a person familiar with the development.
•“There are proposals that, if implemented for the complete market at one go, would create genuine hurdles and so the view is that a phased implementation would work better,” he added.
•He declined to be identified as the proposals were yet to be approved.
•The 23-member committee under the chairmanship of Uday Kotak had submitted its 177-page report to SEBI in October.
•Among other things, the panel proposed that audit committees should monitor the flow of funds to unlisted subsidiaries, including those established overseas, and that listed entities should put in place proper regulatory framework while sharing unpublished price-sensitive information with promoters or any other significant shareholders.
•The committee also proposed that listed companies should be required to have at least six directors on the board with a minimum of 50% representation of independent directors, including one woman director.
•“Effecting a change in a phased manner ensures that the change is not disruptive and the experience gained in the first phase helps to iron out issues, if any, in the complete roll-out,” said J.N. Gupta, managing director, Stakeholders Empowerment Services (SES), a proxy advisory firm.
Compliance conditions
•Meanwhile, the board of the regulator, which has representation from the government and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), will also review the compliance requirements for investors wanting to trade in the derivatives market. This is part of the regulator’s attempts to ensure that only well-informed investors with the required risk appetite trade in derivatives.
•According to the person quoted above, the regulator is likely to make it compulsory for brokers to insist on the net worth certificates of investors who want to trade in the derivatives segment beyond a certain threshold limit, so as to ensure that the exposure is well within the risk taking capacities of the individual.
•Incidentally, the market regulator had released a discussion paper in July last year for the ‘growth and development of equity derivative market in India’, which, among other things, highlighted the rapid growth in the derivatives turnover over the years, along with the kind of participants trading in the segment.
📰 ‘PSB recap: open offer not needed’
•Markets regulator SEBI on Monday exempted the central government from making an open offer for the shareholders of Punjab National Bank, Canara Bank and four other state-owned lenders following capital infusion.
•The exemption has been given with regard to Syndicate Bank, Vijaya Bank, Bank of Baroda and Union Bank of India also.
•Following capital infusion in these listed public sector banks, the government’s respective stakes in the banks would rise. Under SEBI norms, an entity whose shareholding in a listed company goes beyond a particular threshold would have to make an open offer.
📰 ‘U.S. supports WTO, wants some reforms in functioning’
Facing challenges from both within and outside: Azevedo
•Against the backdrop of U.S. President Donald Trump calling the World Trade Organisation a “disaster” for the U.S., WTO Director General Roberto Azevedo has said that the U.S. has been very clear on its support to organization, but wanted some upgrades and reforms in its functioning.
Informal meet
•Mr. Azevedo is in India for a two-day informal ministerial meeting of WTO members over Monday and Tuesday. The meeting assumes significance following the increase in duty on steel and aluminium by the U.S., and the U.S. taking India to the WTO on export incentive programmes.
•“The U.S. has been very clear that it supports the WTO,” Mr. Azevedo said, while briefing the media following a CII event on Monday. “The U.S. sees some conversations that are happening at the WTO now as very welcome and they support that.”
•“At the same time, the U.S. has been saying that they have some concerns with the way the WTO functions,” Mr. Azevedo added. “The U.S. maintains that the world has changed significantly since the WTO’s inception in 1995, and it wants some upgrades and reforms in the WTO.”
•“The WTO has been a disaster for this country, for our country,” Mr. Trump said on March 1, while speaking at an interaction with steel and aluminium industry representatives. “It has been great for China and terrible for the United States, and great for other countries. But terrible for the United States.”
•Mr. Azevedo added that the trade environment globally was very risky at the moment and that the WTO was facing challenges from both within and outside. “We have very significant challenges before us,” he said, adding that one example was the “compromised” state of the dispute settlement system of the WTO due to a blockage in the appointment of appellate body members.
📰 To be fighting fit
The government must order a comprehensive strategic review of the future threats to India
•“Army critical of defence budget,” was a headline in this newspaper on March 14, with other newspapers also focussing on the “dashed hopes” of the Army while reporting on Vice-Chief of Army Staff Lt. Gen. Sarath Chand’s interaction with the parliamentary standing committee on defence. Television debates which followed had the all too familiar trend. The ruling party’s spokespersons talked about how the government had worked to strengthen the military while the Opposition accused them of paying inadequate attention to the forces.
Reality check
•What is the reality? As usual, it lies somewhere between the two extremes. According to a recent report by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, India was the largest arms importer in the last five years, accounting for 12% of global imports. The Indian defence budget has now overtaken that of the U.K. to become the fifth largest in the world.
•Despite this, as the Vice-Chief of Army Staff pointed out to Parliament’s standing committee on defence, the current capital allocation is insufficient even to cater for “committed liabilities”, which is payments for equipment under contractual obligation. Also, 68% of the Army’s equipment is under the ‘vintage’ category and the situation is unlikely to improve in the near future. Equally worrying is the adverse impact on infrastructure development and strategic roads where there is a severe shortage of funds.
•An insufficient defence budget impacts not only modernisation but also the current operational readiness of the force. Reduction in revenue allocation means cutting down on training requirements and routine replacement of items like surveillance and protective equipment.
•The strategic environment in Asia is well known. Asia is developing into a multipolar system, with Russia, China, India and the U.S. jockeying for greater influence. As John J. Mearsheimer points out in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, “(Asia) will be an unbalanced multipolar system, because China will be much more powerful than all other Asian great powers, and thus qualify as a potential hegemon… And when you have power asymmetries, the strong are hard to deter when they are bent on aggression.”
•It is a reality that conventional state-on-state conflict is on the decline, particularly between nuclear nations. However, one region where such a possibility exists is South Asia. India faces not only a long-term strategic challenge from China but also the continuing efforts by Pakistan to somehow maintain a semblance of military balance with India by keeping the Indian Army tied down in Kashmir, and developing a credible nuclear force.
•India’s dilemma is neatly summed up in the U.S.’s National Intelligence Council report, ‘Global Trends: The Paradox of Progress’, “Geopolitically, [South Asia’s] greatest hope is India’s ability to use its economic and human potential to drive regional trade and development. At the same time, Afghanistan’s uncertain prospects, extremism and violence in Pakistan, and the ever-present risk of war between India and Pakistan probably represent the greatest challenge to unlocking the region’s potential.”
•Can India, India ranked at 131 in the 2016 Human Development Report, and with 55.3% of the population living under “multidimensional poverty”, afford a higher defence budget? Conversely, can a weakened military support India’s ambition to achieving great power status? Japan, despite being the second largest economy at one time, was never considered a great power because of its limited military capability.
•Regular strategic consultations between the political and military leadership are rare, and when they do take place it is generally for crisis-management, not long-term strategy. But the security challenges, both internal and external, facing the country have to be squarely addressed. The government and the military need to quickly come together and be on the same page. Currently, there does not seem to be a coherent or common assessment, and one example of this is the debate on the two-front war.
The two-front war
•The service chiefs have constantly reminded the government that a two-front war is a real possibility and of the need to prepare for it. It is quite obvious that the government does not take this too seriously, as evidenced from budgetary allocations and glib statements that the forces are ‘reasonably and sufficiently equipped’. The first step to resolve this contradiction is for the government to order a comprehensive strategic review of the future threats to India. This will provide a clear picture to the political leadership, and also directions to the military on its doctrine and force structures. A long-term capability development plan can then be prepared by the military and approved by the government. This will form the basis for the defence budget. The annual bickering over the mismatch between what the military demands and the actual allocations made will be avoided.
•The government must also take a holistic look at all border-guarding forces — the Army, Assam Rifles, the Border Security Force and the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP). While the Army leads in responding to all Chinese provocations such as Depsang, Chumar and Doklam, the border is technically the responsibility of the ITBP under the Home Ministry.
•Recently, it was announced that the government was planning to raise nine ITBP battalions to “reduce the inter BoP (border outpost) distance” along the China border. Not only does this reflect an inadequate understanding of how the border is to be manned but completely ignores the existing deployment of the Army. A comprehensive and an integrated approach to border management could result in considerable savings.
The military’s challenge
•The military also must understand the realities of India’s finances and look to reconstruct itself. Military capability is not all about money. As a RAND monograph, “Measuring Military Capability”, points out, “Military effectiveness (is) the outcome of the resources provided to the military and its capability to transform these resources into effective warfighting capability. A country may provide its military with generous budgets and large cadres of manpower, but if the military’s doctrine is misguided, the training ineffective, the leadership unschooled, or the organization inappropriate, military capability will suffer.”
•The military must stop talking in terms of numbers, of squadrons, ships and divisions, and focus on capability. This is much more challenging than harping on raising divisions and squadrons because it confronts us with the crucial issue of defining the type of capability that India needs for future warfighting. It will force us to search for the new and the unexpected, and to look at technologies such as robotics, autonomous systems and artificial intelligence to enhance our military capability.
•There is a crying need to move towards greater integration among the three services and with the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The luxury of each service running its own training, administrative and logistics system is no longer affordable. The MoD, staffed entirely by civilians, seems oblivious to defence requirements and follows a procurement process which appears completely broken. An internal report prepared late last year by Minister of State for Defence Subhash Bhamre pointed out that only 8-10% of 144 proposed deals in the last three financial years fructified within the stipulated time period. Greater integration could improve efficiency.
•Civil-military differences over defence budgets are an inevitable part of any democracy. However, these differences can be minimised if there is a common understanding of the contours of a national security strategy, and of the genuine requirements of the military for putting this strategy into effect. On its part, the military must focus on capability for future warfighting, not mere numbers.
📰 Bending the rules — on nod for Neutrino project
The Neutrino Observatory is important, but it must get all environmental clearances
•A year after the National Green Tribunal suspended the environmental clearance granted to the India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO), the Expert Appraisal Committee (Infra 2) of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change has overturned the NGT verdict and granted environmental clearance for the project. The observatory, which is to come up in Bodi West Hills in Theni district, Tamil Nadu, is regarded as a symbol not just of India’s push for research in particle physics; it also signals the intent to nurture centres of excellence. Neutrinos are subatomic particles that are extremely difficult to detect. The laboratory cavern will be located 1,300 metres underground, with an access tunnel. The rock cover is necessary to minimise the naturally occurring cosmic ray backdrop. The project has become controversial on environmental grounds, given the proposed site’s proximity to the Mathikettan Shola National Park in Kerala’s Western Ghats, a global biodiversity hotspot. However, considering the project’s national importance, the Environment Ministry had taken up the proposal for clearance as a “special case”. The green signal is conditional on getting the consent of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the National Board for Wildlife. Despite the 17 conditions laid down by the Expert Committee while granting approval, the manner in which the clearance was granted leaves much to be desired.
•The project has been approved under category B item 8(a) — building and construction projects — of the Schedule to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. But it should have been treated as category A as the project lies just 4.9 km from the national park in Idukki district of Kerala. The NGT had ruled that it was indeed a category A project and the Tamil Nadu State expert appraisal committee also noted that it could not be appraised under category B 8(a) as tunnelling and other activities went beyond the scope of the section. According to the 2006 notification, projects or activities that come under category A require “prior environmental clearance” from the Environment Ministry. Side-stepping the EIA requirement on technical grounds both by the project proponents and the Ministry is surely not the ideal way to go about such matters. For one, the EIA was done by the Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, which is an “unaccredited agency”. And though a public consultation with local people who have a “plausible stake” in the project was conducted in July 2010, the details of the meeting were submitted only by the end of February 2018. The importance of the project notwithstanding, treating it as a special case and bypassing the environmental clearance protocol sets a wrong precedent.
