📰 ‘New codes don’t promote hire and fire’
Rights of workers and unions have been protected, says Labour Ministry
•The Union Labour and Employment Ministry issued a statement on Monday addressing the criticism of the three labour codes passed by Parliament on September 23. The codes, it said, did not enable a “hire and fire” policy and the rights of workers and unions had been protected.
•Parliament passed the Code on Social Security, the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code and the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 amid an Opposition boycott. Workers’ unions, including the RSS-affiliated Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, hit out at the move. They termed the codes, which merge 25 laws, anti-worker.
•In its statement, the Ministry said the codes were a historic game changer and the criticism was unfounded.
•The IR Code increased the threshold beyond which companies have to take prior approval from the government to terminate employees from 100 workers to 300 workers. The Ministry said the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour, to which the 2019 versions of the Bills had been referred to, also recommended increasing the threshold to 300.
•“It is only the aspect of prior permission of the appropriate government which has been removed and other benefits and workers’ rights have been kept intact. The workers’ rights, such as notice before retrenchment, compensation at the rate of 15 days wages per completed year of service, and pay in lieu of notice period, have not been compromised,” the Ministry stated.
•The IR Code also introduced a new Reskilling Fund to be created to give monetary benefit equal to 15 days of wages, it said. “There has been no empirical evidence to suggest that higher threshold promotes hire and fire,” the Ministry said.
•It said the Economic Survey 2019 had pointed out the problem of “dwarfism” in Indian firms, as the companies were not increasing the number of employees beyond 100, the threshold under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Rajasthan had increased the threshold to 300 workers in 2014 and the “average number of factories in Rajasthan having more than 100 increased significantly as compared to the rest of India.” Fifteen other States had followed suit, it added.
•The Ministry said fixed-term employment had already been notified by the Central government and 14 States. It was “pro-worker” and such employees would be eligible for all benefits and service conditions that a regular employee enjoyed, the Ministry said.
•“Non-availability of fixed-term employment implied that an employer had options to either employ on regular basis,” it said.
Given Sri Lanka’s majoritarian turn, appeals to address Tamil aspirations may be ineffectual
•India’s appeal to Sri Lanka to address the aspirations of its Tamil minority will certainly find resonance among the Tamil-speaking populace on both sides of the Palk Strait, but it is doubtful if it will have any effect. A joint statement by both countries after a virtual summit between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his counterpart, Mahinda Rajapaksa, on September 26, not only reiterated India’s stated policy of seeking to ensure “equality, justice, peace and respect within a united Sri Lanka” for Tamils, but explicitly mentioned the need to carry forward the reconciliation process through the implementation of the 13th Amendment to Sri Lanka’s Constitution. It said Mr. Rajapaksa expressed confidence that Sri Lanka would work towards “realising the expectations” of all ethnic groups, including Tamils. However, he appeared to qualify the commitment by linking it to “reconciliation nurtured as per the mandate of the people of Sri Lanka”. Significantly, a separate statement by Mr. Rajapaksa’s office issued later made no reference to the 13th Amendment, which envisaged power-sharing with the provinces based on the Indo-Sri Lankan Accord of 1987. The omission is unsurprising. Mr. Rajapaksa has the required two-thirds majority in Parliament to amend the Constitution as his party pleases, but the gulf between the sort of devolution that would fulfil Tamil aspirations and what his brother, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, would want to prioritise is quite large. India’s interest in the matter is undoubtedly related to speculation that far from implementing the 13th Amendment, Sri Lanka may heed calls to roll back the provincial council system itself.
•The trajectory of relations, in which India is keen on limiting Sri Lanka’s exposure to China’s sphere of influence, may not afford the country much leverage over its smaller neighbour. When India was backing Sri Lanka after the war resumed in 2005-06, it chose to ignore the de-merger of the northern and eastern provinces. Now, when there is little global interest in holding Sri Lanka to its past promises on ethnic reconciliation and justice for war-time excesses, there is room for considerable scepticism about how effectual any appeal to the Sri Lankan regime would be. The Rajapaksas are aware of their mandates and are unlikely to do anything that does not have the approbation of the majority Sinhala community. While announcing steps on bilateral cooperation and a $15 million grant for Buddhist cultural exchanges, India held back its decision on Sri Lanka’s request for a currency swap and a deferment of debt. It would be watching developments on the legislative front, as the Rajapaksa administration plans to undo legislation that had curbed the President’s powers.
📰 Imperatives after India’s September virus peak
After having peaked in the middle of this month, COVID-19 infections could continue till March before turning endemic
•India’s COVID-19 epidemic curve appears to have peaked during the middle two weeks, in September 2020, followed by a downtrend since then — if we work backwards for four weeks from September 26, 2020. Let the numbers tell the story.
What the data reveals
•The weekly totals of reported new infections in those middle two weeks, namely, September 5 to 11 and September 12 to 18, were 6,37,136 and 6,48,096 cases, respectively. The week before the peak (August 29 to September 4), the total was 5,58,999. And the week after the peak (September 19 to 25), the number was 5,96,096 cases.
•During the two peak weeks, the weekly average was 642,616 cases, and in the two flanking weeks, the average was 577,547 cases. The mean daily numbers in the pre-peak week were 79,857; on no day did the number reach 90,000. During the two peak weeks, the mean daily number was 91,801; on 12 days, the number had exceeded 90,000.
•In the post-peak week, the mean daily number was 85,156; only on the first day of that week did the day’s number cross 90,000 cases.
•As the numbers of documented infections are determined partly by the daily volume of tests, which had declined during the last several days, there cannot be too much reliance on these numbers alone. We need additional supportive evidence.
Lab tests, herd immunity
•What is the hidden burden of infections in India? The report of the sero-survey conducted by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in May-June and published in September, gave us some surprises. It showed that the number of infections detected by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, or RT-PCR testing was a small fraction of the total burden in the community that remained undetected. For every laboratory-diagnosed infection, there were 80 to 100 undocumented infections in the country.
•As of September 26, when we analysed the numbers, the cumulative total of laboratory-proven burden of infection for India was 5,990,581, a mere 9,419 short of six million. Using the correction factor of 80-100 proposed by the ICMR, India’s total burden of infection was between 480 million and 600 million.
•In India’s population of 1,380 million, the proportion infected — in other words the herd immunity — was in the range of 35% and 43%. Since about 30% herd immunity is sufficient to reach the peak of the epidemic curve, we can be confident that India indeed has reached the peak of the COVID-19 epidemic.
•In an epidemic of a directly human-to-human transmitted microbe, graphically represented by the more or less symmetric bell-shaped epidemic curve, about equal numbers of people will be infected before the peak and after the peak. That is during the epidemic phase.
•For the pandemic influenza of 2009 which had about the same degree of infectiousness, a proportion of individuals remained uninfected, constituting the pool of susceptible people who sustained its endemic phase. Annual birth cohorts, about 27 million in India, add to the susceptible pool. The true addition will be about 25 million, the rest deducted for premature mortality.
Post-peak scenario
•If 35% of the population was infected pre-peak, another 35% will be infected post-peak, for a total of 70% during the epidemic. The residuum of 30% is sufficient to sustain the microbe in the human population, but not as an epidemic but as low numbers, which is the endemic phase of infection. The endemic phase is perpetual, unless interrupted by vaccination. As more people are infected, new cohorts of children replace them to make the numbers up. By simple arithmetic we can foresee some 20-25 million infections annually. The logic is that input and output have to be balanced in any steady state system, endemic prevalence included. In short, we must anticipate 15-18 infections per 1,000 population every year — more in some years and less in others.
•When can we expect the epidemic to settle down and become an endemic phase? Our epidemic began in mid-March and peaked after six months, in mid-September. So it is reasonable to assume that the epidemic will continue for a further six months, until mid-March 2021, before it turns endemic.
Vaccination and antibody test
•The steady state is over the long term, not the short term. So, unless interfered with using vaccination, we can expect low seasons and high seasons; low years and high years. That is what influenza has taught us. However, the risk of severe disease and death will remain among senior citizens and those with chronic diseases. Vaccination is the ready answer to prevent death in these vulnerable subjects.
•How will a vaccine modulate these numbers? As we had said in this daily on August 13, 2020, in an article (Editorial page; https://bit.ly/36f2DaP), “More than a vaccine, it is about vaccination”, a vaccination programme is necessary to protect life and reduce the disease burden. If a vaccine becomes available during the epidemic phase, the epidemic can be cut short quickly.
•During the endemic phase, vaccination can protect vulnerable individuals. Protection is important for those who are susceptible to severe disease and death, namely senior citizens and those with comorbidity. Identification of susceptible subjects is possible using an antibody test. Ideally, the immunoglobulins, IgG, IgA and IgM, should be tested, as in Iceland where country-wide screening was done.
•If 70% of the population is infected, vaccination is required only in the remaining 414 million people and also the ~7,50,000 new additions per day by birth. The number that needs the antibody tests is about 1,368 million, assuming that nearly 12 million would have had confirmed infection by the time a vaccine is available. Known infected and antibody positive persons need not be vaccinated. Since an antibody test will be cheaper than a vaccination with two doses, funds can be conserved if the need for vaccination is determined first. The government should create facilities for large-scale antibody testing with indigenous production of test reagents.
•These steps, large-scale total antibody testing and vaccine delivery for those who are antibody negative will entail expenses that must be accommodated in the budgetary allocation for health. They can be more than recovered by the liberation of the economy from COVID-19 constraints.
Using India’s strength at WHO
•We also have a unique opportunity to eradicate COVID-19 altogether if we prepare now for the strategic use of vaccines globally. Judging by the speed with which Phase 3 trials are progressing, we can expect a few vaccines emerging before March 2021. Eradication is a global need, for which India can provide leadership, with Indian officials of influence in the World Health Organization. It must be noted that the chair of the World Health Assembly and the Chief Scientist are both Indians.
📰 UN and the retreat from multilateralism
The UN’s capacity to face diverse challenges depends upon nations acting collectively
•The United Nations commemorated its 75th anniversary on September 21, 2020 by adopting a Declaration. The anniversary comes at a time when the world is witnessing a retreat from multilateralism. It also faces an unprecedented pandemic. In his address to the UN on September 22, the UN Secretary-General called the pandemic “the fifth horseman”. No one could have predicted it. It has also brought in its wake the deepest recession the world has seen since the 1930s. This has made it more difficult to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) the UN had adopted. The Secretary-General said the world is “careening off track” in achieving the SDGs.
Challenge to multilateralism
•The challenge to multilateralism is coming not from the have-nots, but the main stakeholders of the system. The U.S. is not alone in withdrawing from multilateralism. Brexit has shown that nationalism remains strong in Europe. It has delivered a blow to the idea of Europe, united and whole. Nevertheless, the most important development is the position of the U.S. As French President Emmanuel Macron remarked in his speech at the UN General Assembly, the U.S., which created the international system as we know today, is no longer willing to be its “guarantor of last resort”. U.S. President Donald Trump stressed “America First” in his speech, and suggested that others too should put their countries first.
•China has stepped in to take advantage of the West’s retreat from multilateralism. But China’s assertion of a role on the world stage is not an embrace of the idea of multilateralism. Its flagship Belt and Road Initiative consists of a series of bilateral credit agreements with recipient countries with no mechanism for multilateral consultation or oversight. Curiously, President Xi Jinping’s speech at the UN General Assembly did not mention it. The European Union’s and U.S.’s sanctions against Russia have driven it closer to China. The rift between the permanent members of the Security Council has already started affecting the work of the UN Security Council.
•The speeches at the regular session of the UN General Assembly on September 22 brought out the clashing perspectives of the U.S. and China. President Trump highlighted China’s culpability in the spread of the pandemic. He pointed out that China had banned internal flights but allowed international flights from Wuhan to continue. This set the stage for the spread of COVID-19. The World Health Organization also failed to provide early warnings. President Xi’s speech sought to project the fight against COVID-19 as a matter of collective responsibility of the international community. He said China will “honour” its commitment to provide $2 billion assistance to the developing countries over two years. This was clearly a reference to existing pledges without bringing additional resources to tackle a crisis which has tipped the world economy into recession. This is not a large amount considering the scale. The actual assistance committed to the UN COVID-19 response fund was a paltry $50 million in addition to a similar amount pledged earlier.
•President Macron pointed out that while the U.S. is withdrawing, the world faces China’s projection beyond its frontiers. He also highlighted problems nearer home posed by Turkey’s intervention in Syria, Libya, and the Eastern Mediterranean, which is a breach of international law. The last was a reference to Turkey sending a drilling ship in Greek and Cypriot exclusive economic zones. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan made a detailed reference to the Jammu and Kashmir issue. Though otherwise Mr. Erdogan’s statements may not matter, Turkey has assumed the position of UN General Assembly President.
Several hurdles
•The UN Secretary-General’s report on the work of the organisation highlights some of the achievements and challenges the world body faces. Over 40 UN political missions and peacekeeping operations engage 95,000 troops, police, and civil personnel. To be effective, they have to be put on a sound financial basis. The UN peacekeeping budget, a little over $8 billion, is a small fraction of the $1.9 trillion military expenditure governments made in 2019. Yet it suffers from a paucity of resources. There was an outstanding assessed contribution of $1.7 billion for peacekeeping activities by the end of the financial year. Similarly, there was an outstanding $711 million in the assessed contribution for the general budget. Most of the humanitarian assistance, developmental work, and budgets of the specialised agencies are based on voluntary contributions. There are calls for increasing public-private partnerships. This is not a satisfactory arrangement. The UN provides ‘public goods’ in terms of peace and development often in remote parts of the world. There may not be enough appetite on the part of corporations. The UN remains an inter-governmental body.
•Most world leaders spoke of climate change. President Trump mentioned that China’s emissions are nearly twice of those of the U.S., and despite its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the U.S. has reduced its carbon emissions by more than any country in the world. President Xi said that after peaking emissions by 2030, China will achieve carbon neutrality before 2060. President Macron said that he was determined to see the EU agree on a target of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050.
•The Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, in his speech made an extensive reference to Jammu and Kashmir. Though this is customary for Pakistani leaders, he brought a particularly uncivil tone to the discourse. Meanwhile, his country has slid to the 134th rank in the UN SDG index, the lowest for any country in South Asia.
•Prime Minister Narendra Modi focused on UN reforms and India’s contribution to UN Peacekeeping for which we can be justly proud. What does the UN bring to the developing countries? It gives them greater political space. We need to support reform not only to expand the permanent members’ category of the Security Council but also to revitalise the role of the General Assembly. The retreat from multilateralism would undermine the UN’s capacity to face diverse challenges.
