📰 Divorce sealed, Brexit finally arrives today
U.K. is the first nation ever to leave EU
•Friday will mark a truly historic moment, but almost nothing will happen.
•A few Union Jack flags will be lowered from EU buildings in Brussels, more will be waved in jubilation by Brexiteers in London at the moment of Britain’s departure — at 11 p.m. in the U.K..
•But for most of the half a billion people in Britain and the bloc, it will be a normal Friday night.
•Britain and the bloc fought tooth and nail for the best part of four years — with insults flying across the English Channel — over the terms of their divorce. Now, on the eve of one of the most significant events in EU history, the political eruptions have ceased and an uneasy quiet reigns — the calm before the next storm.
•The EU would prefer the night to pass without anyone noticing. After all, it is losing one of its biggest members, a diplomatic, military and economic power on a par with Germany and France. The U.K. is the first nation ever to turn its back on the EU in the 62-year history of this experiment in political union.
•British PM Boris Johnson, a champion of Brexit, promised a “dignified exit” that is “mindful of everybody’s feelings.” The U.K. will no longer be part of EU summits and ministerial meetings. Its 73 EU parliamentarians have lost their jobs and cleared out their offices.
Instead of focusing on increasing rural wages, the BJP-led government is wasting resources on the NPR and NRC
•The National Population Register (NPR) and a possible National Register of Citizens (NRC), which will unleash a humanitarian crisis, are being pushed at a time when rural distress is acute. With the Budget due soon, let’s look at how the BJP-led government has served the interests of the rural poor.
A grim picture
•The Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) is meant to be conducted once every five years by the National Statistical Office (NSO). The CES contains details about the spending patterns of households. Data collected from this becomes a vital source of information to improve economic planning and budgetary allocation. However, the Central government suppressed the release of the most recent survey data from 2017-2018. According to the report, leaked to and published by Business Standard , consumer spending fell for the first time in 40 years. A remarkable analysis of the report by Professor S. Subramanian in ‘The India Forum’ compares the Monthly Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (MPCE) from the CES 2011-2012 and 2017-2018. It presents a grim picture of rural India.
•According to his article, if we rank the rural population from the poorest to the richest, and divide them into 10 groups (or deciles), we find that the MPCE fell for every group. This means that consumption — and so income — in the entire cross-section of the rural society decreased. For example, the average monthly consumption levels of the poorest 50% of the rural population was Rs. 1,138 in 2011-2012. This came down to Rs. 1,082 in 2017-2018. Overall, the average monthly household consumption reduced from Rs. 1,430 in 2011-12 to Rs. 1,304 in 2017-18, a sharp decline of around 9%. In other words, more people have become poorer and hence have less money to spend.
•Observing such inconvenient truths, the government tried to shun the survey results citing “data quality issues”. This tendency to move from transparency to opacity when confronted with uncomfortable facts is not new. The government had kept delaying the release of the 2017-2018 Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) data. In January 2019, the PLFS data was leaked, revealing that unemployment under the BJP-led government had reached a 45-year high. The government responded that the leaked report was “a draft report” and didn’t release the data until after the general election results were announced. The truth, however, didn’t change. Years of struggle for transparency is routinely being undermined. Such systemic crushing of data corrodes institutional values and the political economy.
•Recent NSO reports suggest that Consumer Food Price Index inflation increased from 2.99% in August 2019 to more than 14% in December 2019. The sharpest rise was noted in vegetable prices (more than 60%) while the price of pulses spiked by more than 15%. While the rise in prices might benefit some farmers, and the vegetable price rise might be seasonal, how will it impact the landless and small farmers? As per these reports, considering a family of four, even for the richest 5% of the rural population, the expenditure on cereals and pulses is less than Rs. 2.50 per day per person. For the poorer sections, the ability to spend is around Rs. 1 per day per person. To put this in perspective, the cost of one egg is Rs. 5 and one litre of milk is Rs. 30. As per the 2011 Socio-Economic Caste Census, 56% of the households don’t own land and around 51% of the households depend on casual manual labour for income. For this segment, the MGNREGA can serve as a lifeline. However, in the last five years, the budgetary allocation for MGNREGA has been abysmal. One-sixth of each year’s allocation are pending wage payments from previous years. Payments of most States haven’t been released by the Central government since October.
•Continued delays in wage payments, in violation of Supreme Court orders, and low wage rates discourage workers from taking up MGNREGA work. Indeed, the twin evils of low incomes and high food prices means that the landless poor have to further reduce their food consumption. This might have consequences of low nutrition leading to lower physical and mental growth. Accounting for work demand, pending payments and inflation, any allocation for MGNREGA less than Rs. 1 lakh crore would be insufficient.
Wrong focus
•It is distressing that instead of focusing on increasing rural wages and improving the functioning and payments of MGNREGA, the BJP-led government is wasting resources on divisive policies such as the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and National Population Register (NPR). The estimated cost of the NPR is Rs. 4,000 crore, an amount that can support 2.2 crore landless labourers through MGNREGA for 100 days at current wage rates. Further, since the arbitrary dilution of Article 370, according to reports of the Kashmir Chamber of Commerce, Kashmir Valley has incurred losses of around Rs. 18,000 crore, and about 5 lakh people have lost their jobs since August 5. The losses would be amplified if Jammu and Ladakh are added to this calculation. More than 4 lakh migrant labourers from parts of India, mostly from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, were made to leave Kashmir Valley on August 5 rendering them jobless overnight. Add to these the costs of running detention centres for those categorised as ‘stateless’, and we are staring at a manufactured crisis of epic proportions. Women, in particular, would pay a huge price as they relocate after marriage and hence don’t have relevant documents. When the Central government can’t get cash transfers correct for rural women under the PM Matru Vandana Yojana programme, owing to variation in documents, implementing NPR-NRC would be a monumental catastrophe.
📰 A deliverance
Extending the period of medical termination of pregnancy to 24 weeks is a boon for many
•The borders of viability of a particular process are often only as restrictive as the technology on which it rides. In some cases, as science advances, the elastic borders of viability will weave out to accommodate much more than they did in the past. The Centre’s move to extend the limit of medical termination of pregnancy to 24 weeks is a sagacious recognition of this, and needs to be feted. The extension is significant, the government reasoned, because in the first five months of pregnancy, some women realise the need for an abortion very late. Usually, the foetal anomaly scan is done during the 20th-21st week of pregnancy. If there is a delay in doing this scan, and it reveals a lethal anomaly in the foetus, 20 weeks is limiting. Obstetricians argue that this has also spurred a cottage industry of places providing unsafe abortion services, even leading, in the worst of cases, to the death of the mother. When women take the legal route to get formal permission for termination after 20 weeks, the tedium is often frustrating and stressful for a mother already distressed by the bad news regarding her baby. The extension of limit would ease the process for these women, allowing the mainstream system itself to take care of them, delivering quality medical attention.
•The question of abortion needs to be decided on the basis of human rights, the principles of solid science, and in step with advancements in technology. A key aspect of the legality governing abortions has always been the ‘viability’ of the foetus. This indicates, in human gestation, the period from which a foetus is capable of living outside the womb. As technology improves, with infrastructure upgradation, and with skilful professionals driving medical care, this ‘viability’ naturally improves. In the landmark U.S. Supreme Court judgment in Roe v. Wade , the judges held that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy and defined viability as potentially the ability to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. “Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.” Ultimately, nations will have to decide the outer limit also based on the capacity of their health systems to deliver care without danger to the life of the mother; there is no uniform gestational viability for abortion. Even as the government has struck a winner with its decision, it needs to ensure that all norms and standardised protocols in clinical practice to facilitate abortions are followed in health care institutions across the country. Since everything rests on the delivery, stopping short would undoubtedly make this progressive order a mere half measure.
📰 Should restrictions on free speech be reviewed?
There is perhaps ground to create a new jurisprudence of cumulative incitement
•Political discourse in India today seems to invite the full gamut of safeguards and restrictions on free speech that the Constitution prescribes. Quite often, these are misused, and deciding on a case-by- case basis is problematic. Jayant Sriram speaks to Abhinav Chandrachud and Mihira Sood on whether the laws governing freedom of speech and expression in India need to be opened up. Edited excerpts:
Recently, there have been many instances that have stretched the envelope of what we define as freedom of expression. On the one hand, we have FIRs being filed against students for chanting ‘azadi’. On the other, we have political leaders giving hate speeches. Freedom of expression enshrined under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution is not an absolute right; it comes with safeguards outlined under Article 19 (2). So, Abhinav, should these safeguards come under review?
•Abhinav Chandrachud:The Constitution was at its heart also a historical document. The historical context for the enactment of the Constitution was the Partition of the country, and the large-scale communal rioting that took place as a consequence. So, it was in that context that the Constitution was being debated, that the First Amendment to the Constitution was enacted. Interestingly, the First Amendment to the American Constitution is the amendment that creates the right to freedom of speech in the U.S., whereas the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution introduced various additional restrictions to the right to free speech, while also making those restrictions subject to the test of reasonableness.
•But the question you ask is a very interesting one because the conditions that prevailed at the time of Partition and at the time of enactment of the Constitution no longer exists. So, what the framers were worried about — things like communal rioting in a charged environment, an environment that was created and brought about by the influx of a large number of refugees in India — those circumstances no longer exist today. So today, if you look at the judgement in the Shreya Singhal case (2015), it is a really interesting judgment where he [Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman] says we have to adopt the test that was used by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Brandenburg case (1969), where the distinction between advocacy and incitement was really highlighted. The difference between advocating a certain point of view and inciting somebody to take up arms against the government or something like that — that’s when your speech isn’t really afforded any protection.
•Mihira Sood:The Constitution was enacted at a time of great insecurity in the country. It is a document of nation-building at a time when we were insecure about whether or not this project, this experiment of ours as a nation, would succeed; whether we would come together as a nation state. So, to be relying on those insecurities today, I think, does a disservice to the intention that the framers of the Constitution had.
•And earlier you had perhaps a very clear distinction between political speech and the kind of restrictions on political speech, whether it’s public order or sedition, or speech that was related to or offensive to anybody’s religious sentiments. And you had different kinds of jurisprudence on both of them, but I think today, with the kind of campaigning that the government is doing and the kind of vote bank that it appears to be catering to, you have a situation where speech pertaining to religion and causing offence to religion is actually conflated with political speech and I think that is taking us into very new and uncharted territories as far as freedom of speech is concerned.
So, how do you think we should view the Home Minister’s recent statement that people should “push the button so hard that the shock is felt in Shaheen Bagh”? Does it cross a threshold beyond which we say this is unacceptable or should we learn to be okay with it?
•AC:I don’t want to comment on any statement made by any particular individual. But I think that the test which you asked for — I would like to frame it in terms of the great test that was used by a judge called Oliver Wendell Holmes of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was that the greatest protection of free speech will not protect a man who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre. Now a person who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre immediately induces panic with his words. In other words, you can’t argue with the man who shouts fire in a crowded theatre. But if there is some scope for argument, then no matter how inflammatory, I think that speech should be allowed. So that brings us back to the test that Justice Nariman articulated. So long as you’re able to debate and discuss with each other, then, really, there’s no reason to prevent a person from saying what he wants, even though you might not find that speech to be palatable.
•MS:As I said before, I think we are in uncharted territory here. I agree with everything that Abhinav said in terms of whether or not something can be debated, and that should be the test. However, we are also in a situation where it’s a very one-sided debate. One side controls a lot of the media and controls a lot of public expenditure on advertisements and things like that. And in that situation, to what extent these rules apply is not something I’m very sure of. And when it comes to a statement like the Home Minister’s pertaining to Shaheen Bagh, or others of this nature, I don’t think the framers of the Constitution, even when they were talking about the offence to religious sentiments or other restrictions, really anticipated what we are seeing in some of these speeches today. Which is the speech of dog whistles, coded speech that is not by itself threatening or offensive or doesn’t even necessarily pertain to a specified community. Though everyone knows exactly what is being referred to. And the question of incitement again becomes very complicated because when you keep making such a speech, you keep referring insidiously to a particular community, I wonder if that is a ground to create a new jurisprudence of cumulative incitement, not so much directly by particular words, but by building it up over a period of time. That’s something that that we need to think about.
•AC:At some level you are right. The test should be, can you debate with somebody? But at the same time, that draws us into the very tricky issue of hate speech. Because what is it that laws that prevent hate speech are designed to do really? They’re designed to prevent the dehumanisation of an entire community or an entire people. Because at the end of the day, that’s really what happened in a place like Nazi Germany, right? We have to ask ourselves as a society, as a community, as a country, as a nation whether we really want to allow hate speech. The U.S. model, for instance, allows everything. So even Nazi protests are permitted in the U.S., or you are allowed to use words that are highly loaded like the ‘N’ word, whereas in India, we’ve got the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which prevents hurtful speech. So, we’re somewhat like the European model, which says that hate speech won’t be tolerated even though it may have put a dampener on debate, discussion and dissent.
•MS:Another interesting and relevant aspect to this is the argument of speech that punches down rather than punches up. Which is to say that in defining hate speech or defining what kind of speech can be permitted or not permitted, one really relevant test is to look at whether that speech is addressing or attacking a community that is oppressed, or a community that is dominant. And who is making that speech and who is it addressed to and whether we want that kind of relativism in our assessment of what kind of speech should be allowed because surely there is a difference between speech being made from a dominant, or perhaps even an oppressive, community directed downwards, and subversive speech that is coming up from the most oppressed communities.
One of the areas in which the U.S. contrasts with India the most is political satire on comedy shows. Comedy shows are one of the ways in which people know about things that are happening with U.S. politics. India, on the other hand, seems to be going down this route where everyone is extremely quick to take offence to any humour on politics or on a community and demand that defenders be brought to book. Would it help to have a more humorous conversation about politics sometimes?
•AC:A large amount of the trouble with our laws that concern speech and expression is that these laws are criminal laws. Let’s take the example of sedition. Let’s assume that you are a stand-up comic and that you make fun of somebody who’s in a position of power. What the police in the state in which you’re located has the power to do now is to register an FIR against you knowing fully well that it’s not sedition. Sedition is when you invite people to take up arms against the government or violently overthrow the government. So, if you want to do a stand-up routine, even though everybody really knows what the law of sedition is, you’re going to think 10 times before making fun of a person in power.
•MS:I think more so in the current environment where you have a government that tries to polarise public discourse on the basis of national and anti-national, and you’re creating a situation where the sedition section is going to come into full force. So, we need to also be aware that free speech restrictions don’t just come from legislation on behalf of the government, we also need to understand, down to the lowest level of our law enforcement and judiciary, the concept of what is the chilling effect and how that is inimical to our democracy.
What would be the kind of action that would occasion a broader debate on the issues of the type we are having now? Can this be through the courts or Parliament?
•AC:I’m not a big fan of lawmaking by courts. At some level, if an actual litigant is not before the court, it becomes hard for a court to commiserate with the plight of the individual in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Bear in mind that when Parliament legislates, if there is mistake, we can go to a court and we can say this is unconstitutional. But when the court legislates, if there’s something in that legislation that somebody wants to challenge, there’s no real option.
•MS:As disheartening as it may sound we don’t really have an option but to wait for Parliament to want to do something about this. But I do agree that the Supreme Court certainly should not be in the business of lawmaking. So I think it’s really just a question of waiting for better politics in this country.
