📰 India, U.S. looking at training South East Asian nations in U.N. peacekeeping
China significantly scaling up its troop contribution for the missions
•With China significantly scaling up its troop contribution for United Nations Peace Keeping (UNPK) missions, India and the U.S. are looking to undertake training of military personnel for the missions from South East Asian countries on the lines of the ongoing initiative for African countries.
•“The U.S. is keen on undertaking joint training of South East Asian countries in the U.N. peacekeeping and discussions are under way,” an official source said on Friday. India has consistently been among the top troop contributing nations to the U.N. and is the fifth largest with 5,424 personnel in eight countries. The U.S. on the other hand has never contributed ground troops but contributes 27% of the U.N. peace keeping budget.
•In 2016, India and the U.S. began a joint annual initiative “UN Peacekeeping Course for African Partners” to build and enhance the capacity of African troop and police-contributing countries to participate in the U.N. and regional peacekeeping operations. While this is going on, the U.S. is keen on a similar initiative for South East Asian nations like Vietnam and others, the source said.
•China is significantly expanding its troop contribution to the U.N. in addition to the funding, said a second source. “It currently has over 2,500 troops in various U.N. missions and has committed another 8,000 troops as standby,” the source said. Once implemented, it will make China the largest provider of troops to the UNPK.
•China presently contributes 12% of the U.N. regular general budget and 15% of the peace keeping budget. India’s contribution to the regular budget is 0.83% and 0.16% of the peacekeeping budget.
•India has so far participated in 51 of the 71 missions and contributed over 2 lakh personnel. It has troop deployment in Lebanon, Golan Heights, Congo and South Sudan in addition to staff officers in other missions. India has also set up two field hospitals in South Sudan and one in Congo.
•Since 2018, India has co-opted a contingent from Kazakhstan at the mission in Lebanon. There are 120 Kazakh soldiers in the battalion of over 800 soldiers who have now been asked to set up their own mission as they have gained experience, the first officer said. Bhutan too has expressed interest in joining a U.N. mission within the Indian contingent. “We have offered them [Bhutan] to join the mission in South Sudan but they want to be part of the mission in Lebanon. But we already have Kazakh contingent there. We are discussing that,” he said.
•Indian troops are much sought after in U.N. missions. “We have around 5,500 troops in eight countries of Africa and West Asia. They work tirelessly to maintain peace in conflict zones. Their contribution has been applauded by all and Indian troops are most sought after,” said a Major General MK Katiyar, Additional Director General Staff Duties, after addressing an Indian battalion set to leave for South Sudan end of this month. During the COVID pandemic, the field hospitals there have done great job, he said.
•The first batch of 200 personnel from the contingent to South Sudan is scheduled to leave on November 27. As part of COVID precautions, all personnel going for U.N. missions are being tested for COVID by Reverse Transcription - Polymerase Chain Reaction(RT-PCR) method 21 days before departure and then quarantined. A second test is conducted 72 hours before departure and only those testing negative go on deployment.
Nagaland, Mizoram, Kerala and Karnataka rank high in the list
•Arunachal Pradesh recorded the best sex ratio in the country while Manipur recorded the worst sex ratio, according to the 2018 report on “vital statistics of India based on the Civil Registration System”.
•Sex ratio at birth is number of females born per thousand males.
•Arunachal Pradesh recorded 1,084 females born per thousand males, followed by Nagaland (965) Mizoram (964), Kerala (963) and Karnataka (957). The worst was reported in Manipur (757), Lakshadweep (839) and Daman & Diu (877), Punjab (896) and Gujarat (896).
•Delhi recorded a sex ratio of 929, Haryana 914 and Jammu and Kashmir 952.
•The ratio was determined on the basis of data provided by 30 States and Union Territories as the “requisite information from six States namely Bihar, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal is not available,” said the report published by the Registrar General of India.
•The number of registered births increased to 2.33 crore in 2018 from 2.21 crore registered births the previous year. “The level of registration of births has increased to 89.3% in 2018 from 81.3% in 2009,” the report said.
•The prescribed time limit for registration of birth or death is 21 days. Some States however register the births and deaths even after a year.
•The birth or death certificate is issued free of charge by the Registrar concerned if reported within 21 days. If reported within 21-30 days, it can be registered on payment of the prescribed fee. If the duration is more than 30 days but within a year, it can be registered with the written permission of the prescribed authority and on production of an affidavit made before a notary public or any other officer authorised by the State government and on payment of a fee.
•“Births and deaths reported after one year of occurrence shall be registered only on an order of the Magistrate of the First Class after verifying the correctness and on payment of the prescribed fee,” the report said.
📰 Labour Ministry seeks feedback on draft social security rules
They propose to provide the unorganised sector, gig and platform workers access to social security benefits through a government portal.
•The Union Labour and Employment Ministry has notified the draft rules under the Code on Social Security, 2020, which propose to provide the unorganised sector, gig and platform workers access to social security benefits through a government portal.
•The Ministry notified the draft rules on November 13 and sought suggestions and objections within 45 days.
•In a statement on Sunday, the Ministry said the rules have been framed for the implementation of the provisions of the Code on Social Security, 2020, which was passed by Parliament in September, relating to the Employees’ Provident Fund, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, gratuity, maternity benefit, social security and cess in respect of building and other construction workers (BOCW).
•“The draft rules also provide for Aadhaar-based registration, including self-registration by unorganised workers, gig workers and platform workers on the portal of the Central government. Ministry of Labour and Employment has already initiated action for development of such portal,” the Ministry said.
•The rules also provide for the Aadhaar-based registration of BOCW on a portal of the Centre, State government or the BOCW welfare board of the State.
•“Where a building worker migrates from one State to another he shall be entitled to get benefits in the State where he is currently working and it shall be the responsibility of the Building Workers Welfare Board of that State to provide benefits to such a worker,” it said.
•The rules also provide for a single electronic registration of an establishment, including for cancellation in case the business is closed. The BOCW cess would be calculated by the employer on the basis of the cost of construction according to the rates of the State Public Works Department or the Central Public Works Department or the documents submitted to the Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
•“The rate of interest for delayed payment of such cess has been reduced from 2% every month or part of a month to 1%. Under the existing rules, the assessing officer has the power to direct that no material or machinery can be removed or disturbed from the construction site. Such power for indefinitely stopping of construction work has been withdrawn in the draft rules. Further, under the draft rules, the assessing officer can visit the construction site only with the prior approval of the secretary of the Building and Other Construction Workers Board,” the Ministry said.
📰 China-led mega trade bloc RCEP takes off
India will have to re-apply for membership negotiation
•The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a mega trade bloc comprising 15 countries led by China that came into existence on Sunday, said India would have to write expressing “intention” to join the organisation to restart negotiation for membership. In a statement made public after the initialising ceremony among the member-countries on the sidelines of the 37th ASEAN Summit held virtually, the newly formed organisation has laid down the path for restarting discussion that had failed to admit India earlier and said “new” developments would be taken into consideration when India re-applied.
•“The RCEP signatory states will commence negotiations with India at any time after the signing of the RCEP Agreement once India submits a request in writing of its intention to accede to the RCEP Agreement to the depository of the RCEP Agreement, taking into consideration the latest status of India’s participation in the RCEP negotiations and any new development thereafter,” declared the RCEP, which consists of the 10 ASEAN members and Australia, China, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand. The China-backed group is expected to represent at least 30% of the global GDP and will emerge as the largest free trade agreement in the world.
Modi’s silence
•The mega trade bloc is a landmark trade initiative which is expected to boost commerce among the member-countries spread across the Asia-Pacific region. Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed the ASEAN Summit on November 12 and highlighted the necessity for peace and stability in the region but maintained silence regarding RCEP, indicating India’s difficulty in welcoming the China-backed grouping. India’s ties with China in recent months have been disturbed by the military tension in eastern Ladakh along the LAC. In the meantime, India has also held maritime exercise with Japan, Australia, United States for the “Quad” that was interpreted as an anti-China move. However, these moves did not influence Japanese and Australian plans regarding RCEP. Experts are interpreting the beginning of RCEP as a major development that will help China and trade in Asia-Pacific region in the post-COVID-19 scenario.
‘Leverage for China’
•“The agreement means a lot for China, as it will give it access to Japanese and South Korean markets in a big way, as the three countries have not yet agreed on their FTA,” said Amitendu Palit, Senior Research Fellow and Research Lead (Trade and Economics), at the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. “The fact this happened, despite the pandemic, is certainly leverage for China, and shows the idea of decoupling from China is not a substantive issue in a regional sense.”
•India had ended negotiation on RCEP last November over terms that were perceived to be against its interests. In May, The Hindu had reported that according to senior official sources, concerns regarding China in the post-coronavirus world scenario had prevented Delhi from restarting negotiation for membership of RCEP. India did not return to the negotiation despite request from the RCEP members who have discussed the trade pact for nearly eight years.
South China Sea
•Concerns regarding China were reflected in the statements of External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar who stuck to India’s well known position about the South China Sea. In his comments at the ministerial-level discussion of the 15th East Asia Summit (EAS), Mr. Jaishankar obliquely referred to China and said “actions and incidents” in the important maritime region eroded trust and suggested the need to adhere to the rules-based international system. He also maintained the need for “respecting territorial integrity and sovereignty” — an obvious reference to the tension at LAC and Chinese activities in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir..
•It is understood that staying out of RCEP may interfere with India’s bilateral trading with the RCEP member-countries.
📰 Protect our Republic, my lords
The judiciary’s quick intervention in the Arnab Goswami case turns the spotlight on other serious cases that languish
•The facts are brief. Mr. Arnab Goswami of Republic TV, a media group perceived to be supportive of the ruling party, was arrested by the Mumbai Police on November 4, 2020 on a charge of abetting the suicide of Anvay Naik. The suicide note mentioned that the channel had not paid bills amounting to ₹83 lakh and this was a proximate cause of the act of suicide. The accused was remanded to judicial, not police, custody. He moved a writ petition for habeas corpus before the Bombay High Court, wholly unusual, since that only applies to detention without cover of law; in this case he should have moved the Sessions Court for bail or discharge and then come to the High Court if unsuccessful.
A contrast that is worrisome
•The High Court heard his case for five hours on a holiday, and said exactly this on November 9. Mr. Goswami did file such a petition. Strangely, he also moved the Supreme Court and his case is listed on November 11. It takes up the whole day, and that evening he is set free, and emerges pumping his hands in the air, much like a conquering public hero. Two whole days of judicial time of top constitutional courts have been spent in deciding whether this one man should get bail, when his case for precisely this relief was coming before the Sessions judge the next day. As regards the release itself, suffice it to say that once a court thinks there is no tenable case for continued detention, no man should be held imprisoned.
•There is however the disturbing contrast between the breakneck speed of the Supreme Court in this case with other cases which involve large scale and serious violations of fundamental freedoms. And at the back of the discourse looms large two questions, almost too frightening to voice. Has the Court done the one thing which a separate and equal judicial arm never does, and that is to cease being the counter-majoritarian check to a powerful executive? Has the Court abandoned its role of judicial review over acts of government, reducing itself to an arbiter of private disputes?
What is of import
•I cannot but help recall what happened at Rashtrapathi Bhavan when the then chief Justice of India M.N. Venkatachaliah was sworn in to his office in February 1993. Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao said that he looked forward to a cordial relationship between the Court and the government.
•He received a riposte which can only be described as classical — “Mr. Prime Minister, the relationship between us has to be correct, not cordial. Cordiality between court and government has no place in our constitutional scheme of checks and balances.”
•When comes another such Chief Justice of India? And what must the Bheeshma Pitamah, recently turned 92, be going through when he surveys the present Court and notes that there is not one decision in the recent past where the Court has held against the executive?
Judgments never made
•And that there are several where it is the writ of the executive that runs, simply because there is no judgment of the Court. Witness the petitions against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, preventive detentions in Kashmir, and the challenge to the dilution of Article 370. And the appeal against the gag order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court preventing the reporting of the first information report about land grabbing by those with proximity to high places is still awaiting listing after two months.
•And in one case, a decision comes in after the issue no longer survives, that of the Shaheen Bagh protest, where the Court decried the unregulated use of public spaces for protest. Leave aside the merits of the decision, the question is whether a gentler factual backdrop would not have been more advisable. Context matters, my Lords, context matters. It is not just every word of what you say that is examined, but in what kind of case you say it, as well as the cases where you say nothing. That all adds up to tote the balance you hold between us the people and our rulers. It also determines another balance, that of power between you and the ruling forces in politics and government. The unstated major premise of judicial realpolitik is that your power comes not from Articles 32 and 226 but from the public esteem and regard in which you are held, and that proceeds from the extent you act as our constitutional protector. In direct proportion. Sans that, there are only the trappings.
Words of caution
•Following on the heels of the Arnab Goswami release comes the Attorney-General for India’s nod to book the stand-up comedian, Kunal Kamra, for contempt of court for his tweets about the Supreme Court in the instant scenario. (Incidentally, this is the man the Ministry of Civil Aviation banned from flying for accosting and berating Arnab Goswami on a flight.) What kind of message is being sent out here? The staple fare of comedians is to exaggerate to make a point; has our Supreme Court really come to the stage that it should be pricked by this? And then again, remember that in all courts, there was a special place reserved for the jester. Not just for humour, he also had the licence of satire to make pungent observations. In so doing, he served a valuable purpose — of telling the king what he needed to know, not what he wanted to hear. A stratagem to ensure that truth got spoken to power sans aggressive posture. Great kings valued their jesters like Akbar did Birbal and Krishnadevaraya did Tenali Raman, good kings tolerated them, the others beheaded or banished them. Mark you, also, it is very difficult to use the blunderbuss law of contempt to deal with a nimble jester, who incidentally, has now become nationally famous. Speaking of the Attorney General, one hopes that he will soon revert to what he is constitutionally mandated to do — to appear in Court in major cases of constitutional importance. He is our seniormost lawyer of constitutional vintage, with unmatched erudition and experience, and knows perfectly that he is the first law officer of the Union, not the lawyer for the government of the day or party in power, a distinction that seemingly evades his deputy, the Solicitor General.
They remain unheard
•May I present, my Lords, a solution. Extend the grace of your early hearing to Varavara Rao, poet, aged 80, suffering neurological and urological health issues. To Sudha Bharadwaj, aged 59, civil liberties defender, suffering hypertension, heart disease, diabetes. They have been incarcerated from August 2018. To Siddique Kappan, the journalist from Kerala detained on his way to Hathras in October this year. Take heed of the pitiable plight of Stan Swamy, activist, aged 83, suffering abdominal pain and multiple falls in jail; he is unable to hold a glass because of Parkinson’s disease, his plea to use a sipper/straw in jail has been adjourned by three weeks to November 26. Let their cases too be posted emergently before the same Bench — which so instantly gave relief of personal liberty to Mr. Goswami — and let them be judged according to law. And then lead us on the path of constitutional purity so that our Republic may prosper.
📰 A recipe to tear down trade unions
The new labour laws are a brutal attack on workers’ ability to safeguard their rights
•Labour law ‘reform’ has been on the table since 1991 as every government’s favourite solution for economic growth. Yet, there was no consensus between governments, political parties, workers and their trade unions, and employers, on what this meant. Unlike other political formations, the BJP has been in unqualified agreement with employers that the existing labour laws needed to be replaced. During its rule in 1998-2002, the BJP constituted the 2nd National Labour Commission and limited trade union representation in it. The consequent recommendations of the Commission were rejected by trade unions across the country.
•This time too, the BJP-led Central government has actively excluded trade unions from pre-legislative consultations on drafting the new labour codes, repealing all existing labour laws and replacing them with four new labour codes. It saw these through Parliament in the absence of the Opposition, whilst ignoring substantive recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee.
•The BJP portrayed the now-repealed laws as serving only a small, exclusive section of working people, while claiming that what has now been legislated has a universal reach. This is just political chicanery. What is common to all the four codes is that they dilute workers’ rights in favour of employers’ rights, and together undermine the very idea of workers’ right to association and collective action.
Long history
•Trade unions first emerged in the 19th century as self-managed organisation of workers in the face of extreme exploitation. They provided, and continue to provide, a collective voice to working people against employers’ exploitative, unfair and often illegal practices.
•It is through trade unions that workers have been able to win better wages, fairer employment conditions, and safe and secure workplaces.
•In India, workers won the legal right to form trade unions under the colonial rule in 1926, when the Trade Union Act (TUA) was adopted. The law provided a mechanism for the registration of trade unions, from which they derived their rights, and a framework governing their functioning. The TUA also bound workers’ actions within a legal framework by providing for deregistration if a trade union “contravened any provisions of the Act”.
•The TUA gave workers the right, through their registered trade union, to take steps to press their claims, and where necessary, as in the case of a malevolent employer, agitate for their claims and advance them before the government and the judiciary. It also provided members (workers) and elected officers of a union a degree of immunity, including against the law on criminal conspiracy. Importantly, the law recognised that actions based on collective decisions by workers were legal and did not constitute criminal conspiracy.
•The so-called “simplifying” of labour laws, repealing the TUA, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and creating the Industrial Relations Code (IRC), has a very sinister outcome for workers’ right to association. The code enormously widens the grounds under which a trade union may be deregistered. Under the TUA, deregistration was limited to the internal functioning of a union — in case a union violated the financial rules set down under the law or its own constitution. The Standing Orders Act and the Industrial Disputes Act were concerned with conditions of employment and settlement of disputes respectively. They had nothing to do with the internal functioning, and, therefore, with the existence of a trade union.
Vague definitions
•Under the new IRC, a trade union can be deregistered for contravention of unspecified provisions of the code. It simply says that deregistration would follow in case of “contravention by the Trade Union of the provisions of this Code”. The possibility of deregistering a trade union in this unspecified manner shifts the balance completely in favour of employers, who continue to enjoy protection under the Companies Act. This violates the principles of equality before the law and of natural justice.
•When a trade union is deregistered, it can no longer represent its members (the workers) before the dispute resolution machinery or in court. And, the moment a trade union loses its registration, any collective decision taken by its members and elected officers can be treated as illegal. For example, a decision for strike action would leave employers free to either dismiss striking workers or charge them huge penalties for their claimed losses. It also means that the trade union’s members and elected officers lose their immunity from prosecution for criminal conspiracy for collective decisions and actions, which is exactly what the TUA protected them against. The new code has cut and pasted from the TUA the provisions granting immunity against charges of conspiracy, but this is meaningless if the trade union itself is deregistered. The new code appears to be designed to deter collective action by workers’ unions, and make them fearful of getting trapped in the cross hairs of the new, supposedly “simplified” code.
Extra-legal formations
•With the threat of deregistration ever-present, workers and their unions will be pushed to create extra-legal formations like ‘struggle committees’ and ‘workers’ fronts, such as existed before the TUA, in order to advance their demands against unreasonable employers. This would have two outcomes: first, it will push employment dispute resolution outside the legal framework, which, in turn, will lead to the second, even more damaging outcome, which is criminalising working class dissent, since workers’ agitations will have to take place through extra-legal formations. The freewheeling provision for trade union deregistration in the IRC, apart from being an attack on a century-old universal right is, very importantly, also the withdrawal of an absolute right. Once a trade union is deregistered or is effectively silenced by a constant and amorphous threat of deregistration, workers effectively lose their fundamental right to freedom of association.
•This has grave implications for the working class’s ability to defend its rights at a time when it is up against a capitalist class whose greed is insatiable, a vengeful government, and a capricious judiciary. Undermining trade unions, as the new code does, bodes ill for democratic rights in this country.
📰 Border on the boil
India’s threat matrix now includesthe possibility of a two-front situation
•With a series of ceasefire violations by the Pakistan Army that targeted civilians, and heavy artillery fire by the Indian Army, the LoC is once again on the boil. Six civilians, four Indian Army personnel and a BSF jawan were killed in the firing from Pakistan across three sectors, and official Pakistani media said one Pakistani soldier and five civilians were killed by Indian cross-border shelling. The government accused Pakistan of firing as a way of providing cover for terrorists infiltrating into India before the winter snow closes the passes and underground routes, and issued a démarche to Pakistan’s top diplomat in New Delhi on Saturday decrying the “coordinated firing along the length of the LoC using heavy caliber weapons, including artillery and mortar, on Indian civilians” by the Pakistan Army. The temperature has been further raised by political words from the highest level. Prime Minister Modi’s speech, as he stood atop a tank during a Deepavali visit to the Longewala post, warned of a “ prachand jawab ” (fierce reply) to Pakistan, and criticised China’s “expansionist mindset”, albeit without naming either neighbour. Hours later, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan tweeted that there should be “no doubt” of Pakistan’s ability and “national resolve” to defend its borders. Pakistan’s assault at the LoC was followed by allegations against India on terror. In a new diplomatic tactic, its Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi appeared at a press conference along with Pakistan’s military spokesperson, claiming to have a “dossier” on Indian involvement in terror attacks inside Pakistan that he said primarily targeted China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) infrastructure projects. India termed the press conference a “futile anti-India propaganda exercise” and said the charges were fabricated.
•The present situation at the LoC cannot be normalised and must be taken seriously. Army officials now say 2020 has seen the highest levels of firing since the 2003 India-Pakistan ceasefire agreement, with a record number of 4,052 ceasefire violations by Pakistan since January. Pakistan’s intentions are to provoke India ahead of its two-year term at the UN Security Council from January 2021, as well as to rake up trouble before the Financial Action Task Force review in February. By naming the CPEC, Pakistan also appears to want to further strain India-China relations that have undergone what Foreign Secretary Harsh Shringla called their “worst crisis” since 1962, as a result of PLA aggression at the LAC in Ladakh and the stand-off. Studied with the escalation by Pakistan at this time, it should be evident that India’s threat matrix includes the very real possibility of a two-front situation where the Army will be engaged at the LoC and the LAC simultaneously, along with a possible spike in terrorist activity in Jammu and Kashmir.
