📰 India looks at integrating more countries into coastal radar network
Efforts are in advanced stages to set up coastal radar stations in Maldives, Myanmar and Bangladesh
•As part of efforts to further expand the coastal radar chain network meant to enable real time monitoring of the high seas for threats as also expand India’s assistance for capacity building to Indian Ocean littoral states, efforts are in advanced stages to set up coastal radar stations in Maldives, Myanmar and Bangladesh, according to defence sources.
•“Mauritius, Seychelles and Sri Lanka have already been integrated into the country’s coastal radar chain network. Similar plans are in the pipeline with Maldives and Myanmar and discussions are ongoing with Bangladesh and Thailand,” a defence source said. Similar proposals are being pursued with some more countries, a second source said without elaborating.
Nodal agency
•Two of the coastal radar stations in Maldives were functional as of last year and work was under way on the third station and was to have been completed early this year. The Indian Navy’s Information Management and Analysis Centre (IMAC) located in Gurugram which was set up after the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks is the nodal agency for maritime data fusion.
•As part of information exchange regarding traffic on the high seas, the Navy has been authorised by the government to conclude white shipping agreements with 36 countries and three multilateral constructs. So far agreements have been concluded with 22 countries and one multilateral construct. Of these, 17 agreements and the one multilateral construct have been operationalised, the second source stated.
Info fusion centre
•At the Navy’s Information Fusion Centre for the Indian Ocean Region (IFC-IOR) which is meant to promote Maritime Domain Awareness, three more International Liaison Officers (ILO) are expected to join soon. ILOs from France, Japan and the U.S. have already joined the centre. “The additional officers have been delayed due to COVID-19,” an official said.
•Speaking to the media early this month, Navy Chief Admiral Karambir Singh said the IFC-IOR had established itself as the hub of maritime security information in the IOR through white shipping exchange agreements with 21 countries and 20 maritime security centres. ILOs from 13 countries had been invited, and three ILOs had joined the centre, with 3 more likely to join shortly, he had stated.
•Under Phase-I of the coastal radar chain network, 46 coastal radar stations have been set up across the country’s coastline. Under Phase-II of the project, which is currently under way, 38 static radar stations and four mobile radar stations are being set up by the Coast Guard and is in advanced stage of completion.
Despite progress in defence ties, deals in trade, sanctions, nuclear energy hang fire
•With exactly a month left in U.S. President Donald Trump’s tenure, U.S. Ambassador to India Kenneth Juster begun a series of calls on Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and Petroleum, Natural Gas minister Dharmendra Pradhan and NITI Aayog chief Amitabh Kant, as well as “farewell discussions” with U.S.-India business chambers USIBC and USISPF.
•The calls highlighted the achievements of the India-U.S. partnership in the last four years. While these include great strides in diplomatic, defence, commercial, energy and health areas, talks on waivers for possible sanctions, trade negotiations, and nuclear deals, are in the category of “unfinished business” between the the two countries.
No free pass
•In a briefing this week, a U.S. official made it clear that despite hopes being raised in 2018 by the U.S. Congress’s amendment to the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), that allowed the U.S. President to waive sanctions on India’s purchase of the S-400 missile systems from Russia, Mr. Trump has not made the decision to give India a pass.
•Speaking about sanctions against Turkey for its purchase of the S-400, the official said this should be seen as a warning to others hoping to acquire the system.
•“We would caution other U.S. partners against making major purchases of Russian defence equipment in the future that would also put them at risk of sanctions,” R. Clarke Cooper, U.S. State department assistant secretary for political-military affairs told journalists in Washington, adding that the sanctions could be actualised at any point and there is no “blanket waiver” possible.
•“I know some states have thought or sought that either Congress or the Executive Branch would apply a waiver on sanctions, and I just would offer that is definitely not the case,” said Mr. Cooper, who had earlier called India’s consideration of the Russian S-400 and Sukhoi S-35 fighter jets as “problematic” as they would risk interoperability of India-U.S. defence systems.
•However, when asked about the latest U.S. comments, Indian government officials dismissed concerns.
•“There will no issues in interoperability of the U.S. and Russian systems as they will be plugged into the Indian grid. There are filters for that,” a defence official told The Hindu.
•“The S-400 is a high technology platform and is a priority procurement and the U.S. understands that,” said another official.
•Given that the Democrats had pushed for the CAATSA law, however, the government will have to take its chances with President-elect Biden in office providing the waiver once India takes delivery of the S-400 systems in 2021.
Curbs on trade
•Trade negotiations are another area where New Delhi hopes the Biden administration will pick up where it believes the Trump administration failed to deliver, particularly its failure to reverse the decision to revoke India’s Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) since June 2019 due to differences in the areas of medical devices, dairy and IT products.
•In comments to business chamber FICCI this month, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar said Indian officials had been ready to cut a deal, but it “didn’t happen”, indicating that the problem lay at the U.S. Trade Representative’s end, and hoped to pick up the talks with USTR-designate Katherine Tai.
•In another discussion with CII, however, USTR Robert Lighthizer blamed “extremely high” Indian tariffs for their failure to agree on even a “mini trade-deal” discussed by his team and Commerce Ministry officials for two years, and that the “political change” in Washington would be “a bit of a setback” that will “slow things up."
•Meanwhile, officials hopeful of a commercial contract finally being finalised for the decade-old MoU between U.S.-based Westinghouse Electric Company and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) to build six reactors in Andhra Pradesh — the first since Mr. Modi and U.S. President Obama announced “the deal is done” in 2015 — have also been disappointed with the lack of progress. Despite some hopes that the contract would be signed during President Trump’s visit to India in February 2020, the deal is yet to go through, indicating lingering concerns over India’s civil liability laws, which would have to be picked up with the Biden administration.
•Both Indian and U.S. officials point out that the ledger of achievements during the last four years have been considerably longer than the “unfinished business”. They say that while New Delhi is now preparing hopefully for the Biden era, this period of plain-speaking, particularly Mr. Trump’s “blunt” and tough methods with India’s two main adversaries, Pakistan and China, and his flexibility in defence ties with India, would be missed.
Personal proximity
•In particular, they point to the intense political engagement between Mr. Trump and Mr. Modi, including two huge, joint public rallies in Houston and Ahmedabad held just five months apart in 2019 and 2020. The growing defence partnership, enhanced military exchanges bolstered by the signing of four foundational agreements: GSOMIA, LEMOA, COMCASA and BECA, U.S. grant of the STA-1 Strategic Trade Authorisation to India, capped by intelligence sharing and quick procurements during the ongoing standoff between Indian and Chinese troops at the Line of Actual Control (LAC), is clearly at the top of the list of achievements.
•Added to this is the crystallisation of the “Quad” arrangement of Australia-India-Japan-United States and the “Indo-Pacific” policy that has led to regular talks at senior levels and the inclusion of all Quad militaries to the ‘Malabar’ exercises this year.
•The growth in trade of goods and services (from $109 billion in 2015 to $142 billion in 2019) and increase in Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) from U.S. to India (from $35billion to $45billion) is significant, albeit lower than expected, given a turn away from U.S.-China trade. More remarkable, perhaps is the rapid growth in energy ties, driven by the U.S. decision to allow oil exports in 2015 and India’s decision to cut oil imports from Iran and Venezuela due to the threat of US sanctions.
•As a result, in just two years from 2017 to 2019, Indian imports grew from zero to $4.5 billion, and the U.S. now accounts for a growing share of Indian oil and LNG imports.
📰 Nepal set to face fresh election
President dissolves Parliament on Prime Minister Oli’s recommendation
•In an emergency Cabinet meeting held on Sunday morning, Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli recommended the dissolution of Parliament of Nepal and called for general election.
•The decision was ratified by President Bidhya Devi Bhandari in an official announcement hours later.
•“Prime Minister Oli had the mandate to govern Nepal but there were lingering problems among the higher ranks of the ruling party as senior leaders were unable to go with the PM. There is a tradition in democracy to deal with such situations by going back to the people and Prime Minister Oli has decided to seek fresh mandate,” Rajan Bhattarai, Foreign Affairs Adviser to Prime Minister Oli, told The Hindu from Kathmandu.
•The President has called for a two-phase election to be held on April 30 and May 10 next year. The dramatic move came after weeks of tension with challenger Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, who has been demanding that Mr. Oli change his style of governance.
Protests break out
•Immediately, after the announcement, seven Ministers close to Mr. Prachanda announced their resignation at a press conference.
•Mr. Oli’s announcement was followed by deployment of quick action forces across capital Kathmandu and other major Nepal cities and towns where protests broke out spontaneously.
•Nepal held election in November-December 2017 and the elected 275-member Pratinidhi Sabha is expected to serve a full five-year term.
•Indicating fast-paced political changes, the rival faction of the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP) led by Mr. Prachanda and former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal formed a joint platform to protest against Mr. Oli’s move, alongside the Janata Samajvadi Party of former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai and the Nepali Congress.
•The dissolution of Parliament prompted a meeting of the pro-Prachanda faction in the Standing Committee of the NCP on Sunday. The group decided to take disciplinary action against Mr. Oli.
•Both the factions of the NCP are expected to meet on Monday. In the meanwhile, at least three writ petitions were filed in the Supreme Court of Nepal on Sunday. Sources in the NCP said the party is expecting more such petitions to be filed on Monday.
•Mr. Oli’s government, in recent weeks, was unable to pass politically sensitive decisions due to the opposition in the Standing Committee, where Mr. Prachanda’s faction is in majority.
•The tension between the two factions has been growing since May, with Mr. Prachanda repeatedly accusing Mr. Oli of not consulting the party’s organs for key decisions. Both sides came together to claim the Kalapani region of India and helped in the passing of a new political map of Nepal. However, bickering began soon after Parliament passed the new map on June 13.
•It is well known that Mr. Prachanda had been unhappy about the appointment of key Ambassadors and Cabinet Ministers without adequate consultation with the Standing Committee. The situation worsened this month as Mr. Oli failed to get ordinances passed through the party’s higher organs because of the opposition from the Prachanda faction.
Strong criticism
•The move to dissolve Parliament has drawn strong criticism both from the Opposition and the members of the ruling coalition. “The decision is unconstitutional as there is no provision in our 2015 Constitution to dissolve Parliament that is functioning perfectly well. The problem was inside the Nepal Communist Party and the Prime Minister cannot attack Parliament for his inability to deal with intra-party dissidents,” said Rajendra Mahto of the Janata Samajvadi Party. He added that Nepal faces an uncertain future due to the decision. “The decision amounts to a coup.”
•Political leaders, including former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, have cautioned about the future of Nepal in the backdrop of the Cabinet decision.
•“Prime Minister Oli’s recommendation is extremely unfortunate and a blot in Nepal’s politics. This goes against the interest of democracy. All political parties of Nepal must protest against this development,” Mr. Bhattarai said.
📰 The right call: On A.P. High Court order
The A.P. High Court order on inquiry into a ‘constitutional breakdown’ was over-reach
•The Supreme Court on Friday quite rightly stayed an Andhra Pradesh High Court order that sought to convene a judicial inquiry into whether there is a “constitutional breakdown” in the Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy-led government in the State. The top court’s intervention must be welcomed as it quickly halted an untenable adventure by the High Court that might have required the imposition of President’s Rule. While hearing habeas corpus petitions filed by relatives of persons remanded in judicial custody or on bail, on October 1, the High Court had suo motu summoned the State counsel to assist in deciding “whether in circumstances prevailing in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the court can record a finding that there is constitutional breakdown in the State or not”. This was clearly a case of judicial over-reach by the A.P. High Court. The question of a “constitutional breakdown” or the failure of constitutional machinery is dealt with under Article 356 of the Constitution, whose invoking comes under the prerogative of the executive and not the judiciary. In the S.R. Bommai case, a nine-member Bench of the Supreme Court construed the scope of Article 356, which also allows the imposition of President’s Rule in the States, with stringent conditions for the valid exercise of that power by the President after being presented with a proclamation by the Union Council of Ministers. These included ascertaining whether objective conditions exist which render it impossible to carry out governance in the State where the proclamation has been made and the process has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before consideration for judicial review. But the A.P. High Court’s order seemed to have reversed the scheme of things by putting the cart before the horse in asking to ascertain if there is a “constitutional breakdown in the State”. The Chief Justice of India noted that the Court found it to be “disturbing” before staying it.
•The Supreme Court’s order comes in the wake of incidents pointing to a tussle between the judiciary and the elected government in Andhra Pradesh. Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy had, in an unprecedented letter to the CJI, complained about the alleged hostile attitude of the High Court against him and his government besides making controversial allegations against a senior Supreme Court judge. This was even as the High Court ordered a CBI probe into what it termed was a social media campaign against the judges. The onus is now on the Supreme Court to put an end to the unseemly tussle between the judiciary and government in the State. Ordering an internal inquiry into the Chief Minister’s letter would be a good beginning. A clear nullification of the High Court order will also ensure that such legal adventures impinging upon the separation of powers in the State are not repeated.
📰 Smouldering unrest: on Wistron plant issue
Inequitable labour-capital relations could hit India’s investment destination credo
•On Saturday, global personal technology major Apple placed all fresh production orders on hold for its Taiwanese supplier Wistron. This embargo may affect all Wistron units, but the trigger was one of the biggest expressions of industrial unrest in India in recent years — at a new facility set up by the firm in Kolar, Karnataka, to manufacture iPhones, among other things. Violence broke out at the unit on December 12 after several workers raised slogans protesting against non-payment of their dues, a protest that escalated. In Kolar, Wistron claimed ₹437 crore of damages from the incident even as the Centre and the State government reacted with alacrity, given the importance of the project for India to establish its credentials as an alternative manufacturing base to China. The State said it was disturbed and around 160 people were arrested. The Centre asked the B.S. Yediyurappa administration for an expeditious inquiry to identify the culprits and ensure that investor sentiment is not affected due to the ‘one-off incident’.
•The Prime Minister has been reported to be ‘very worried’ about the development, and all necessary support has been promised so that the firm may restart operations. That may take a while now given that Apple’s own probe has found glaring lapses in Wistron’s treatment of its staffers. From playing victim initially, Wistron has been compelled to change tack — it now claims the damages from the violence were about ₹50 crore and has fired a top official handling its India operations for failing to ensure employees got their entire dues in a timely manner. Perhaps, if designated officials for hearing labour grievances had reacted adequately when Wistron’s 1,300-odd regular staffers or its 8,000 odd contract workers at Kolar raised a red flag about wages, this may not have come to pass. If anything, enforcement of labour laws for employees’ benefit will make India an even more attractive and contrasting alternative to China where labour exploitation is rife. With global firms under pressure to exhibit higher standards in environmental, social and corporate governance, India also needs to up its game on enforcing compliance with the laws of the land and treating labour-employer disputes in an even-handed manner. When a showcase project becomes an exemplary basket case within months, for whatever reasons, the repercussions are deeper and wider. With the country on the cusp of a new labour law regime being marketed as a business-friendly regimen, misgivings about their provisions or unresponsive systems for employees’ grievances can only foment more such unrest. It may be a good time for the government to rekindle a tripartite dialogue mechanism with trade unions and employers like the erstwhile Indian Labour Conference, not held since 2015.
📰 Laying the foundation for faster growth
The decline in 2020-21 caused by the pandemic can be addressed only if the Indian economy grows at 8% in 2021-22
•The year that is shortly coming to an end has been an extraordinary one. In recent memory this is the first economic crisis that has been triggered by a non-economic factor. It is a pandemic, a novel coronavirus pandemic, which has literally brought the economy to a halt. The actions that have to be taken to prevent the spread of the virus such as the lockdown have impacted the economy severely. As the restrictions were slowly withdrawn, the economy has also started looking up. This can be seen very clearly from the performance of the Indian economy in Q1 and Q2 of 2020-21. In Q1, the economy declined by 23.9%; it declined by 7.5% in Q2, when the relaxations were eased.
•At the dawn of the New Year 2021, several questions rise in our mind. How bad was the performance of the Indian economy in 2020-21? What are the prospects for 2021-22? What should the stance of monetary policy be in the coming months? What should the Budget to be presented by the central government in February 2021 focus on? Will the global environment for trade and investment improve and help India? What should be the medium-term focus including the role of reforms be?
Performance in 2020-21
•We now know the GDP numbers for the first half of 2020-21. Reductions in the first half of GDP at 2011-12 prices in 2020-21 as compared to the first half of 2019-20 is ₹11,15,879 crore which is 7.66% of the 2019-20 GDP. If the Indian economy at least maintains the second half GDP in 2020-21 at the level of the previous year, the full year contraction can be limited to about 7.7%.
•Our estimate (by D.K. Srivastava and I) is that if there is an increase in GDP at least in Q4 if not in Q3, the overall contraction in 2020-21 can be be limited to the range of 6% to 7%. This of course would require a substantial pick up in government expenditure. There are many indicators such as collection of Goods and Services Tax (GST), improved output of coal, steel and cement and positive growth in manufacturing in October 2020 which point to better performance of the private sector. Of course, some segments of the economy such as the hospitality sector will take time to recover. Thus on the whole, it looks that the setback to the economy can be limited to minus 6% to minus 7%. Of course, this is a substantial improvement over the forecasts of some agencies such as the International Monetary Fund which had estimated the economy to decline by 10.3%.
What to expect in 2021-22
•It is important to remember that if only if the Indian economy grows at 8% in 2021-22 will we be compensating for the decline in 2020-21. Thus, even with a strong growth of 8%, we will only be back to where the economy was at the end of 2019-20. The two years taken together cancel each other. Thus, it is imperative that the Indian economy grows at a minimum of 8% in 2021-22. This should be possible if by that time restrictions imposed because of COVID-19 are withdrawn and the nation goes back to a normal state. Some sectors can act as lead sectors or engines of growth. This is where increased government capital expenditures become relevant. The private sector seems to be revising its future prospects and many new issues in the capital market have met with good response. The global environment for trade and growth is an uncertain factor. Many developed countries are still struggling to find answers to COVID-19. Though vaccines may ultimately provide a solution, this may take time. The attitude to trade must also change. Closing borders may appear to be a good short-term policy to promote growth. But actually it kills growth all around. A strong surge in our exports will greatly facilitate growth, i.e. 2021-22. However, much of Indian’s growth must rest on domestic factors. Growth must not only be consumption driven but also investment driven. It is the latter which in a developing economy can sustain growth over a long period.
Monetary policy
•The stance of monetary policy in 2020-21 has been extremely accommodative. The circumstances warranted it. Three major elements in the policy are: a reduction in interest rate through changes in policy rate; providing liquidity through various measures, and regulatory changes such as moratorium. There has been a substantial injection of liquidity into the system. According to the recent monetary policy statement, reserve money increased by 15.3% as of end November 2020. Money supply however grew by 12.5% because some of the injection of liquidity ended up in excess reserve. With a large injection of liquidity, one should expect inflation to remain high. In the final analysis, inflation is determined by overall liquidity or money supply in the system in conjunction with the availability of goods and services. While there may be sufficient justification for an accommodative monetary policy in a difficult year such as 2020, there will be need to exercise more caution as we move into the next year.
Fiscal initiatives
•Government expenditures play a key role in a situation such as the one we are facing. The performance of the sector “Public Administration, Defence, and other services” which is subject to policy intervention is disappointing. In the second quarter of 2020-21, there was a contraction of this sector by 12.2%. The stimulus policies involving higher government expenditures were expected to arrest the contractionary momentum. On certain assumptions, we had earlier projected that the fiscal deficit of the Centre in 2020-21 would be 8% of GDP. With the slower momentum in government expenditures, perhaps the fiscal deficit of the Centre may be only 6% of GDP in 2020-21.
•As indicated earlier, government expenditures should be speeded up from now on so that the contraction in the current fiscal year as a whole can be reduced. In 2021-22, government revenues should pick up with the rise in GDP. The process of bringing down the fiscal deficit must also start. This will still leave the government sufficient space for maintaining the expenditure at a reasonably high level. What is required is a sharp increase in government capital expenditures which can act as a stimulus for growth. A detailed investment plan of the government and public sector enterprises must be drawn up and presented as part of the coming Budget.
Growth and investment
•Even as we combat the effects of COVID-19, we must lay the foundation for faster economic growth. A sad fact is that over the past decade, the investment rate has been falling. In 2018-19, the rate fell to 32.2% of GDP from 38.9% in 2011-12. Some of the recent measures including corporate tax rate changes may help in augmenting investment. A strong effort must be made to improve the investment climate. The National Infrastructure Pipeline is a good initiative. But the government must come forward to invest more on its own. We must also remind ourselves that the climate for investment is also influenced by non-economic factors of which social cohesion is most important.
•Reforms are important in the context of rapid development. Recent controversies over reforms have shown that timing, sequencing and consensus building are equally important. Labour reforms, for example, are best introduced when the economy is on the upswing.
•Many have cherished the idea of India reaching the status of a $5 trillion economy by 2025. But increasingly the idea is becoming a more distant goal. The Indian economy in 2019 was at around $2.7 trillion. To achieve the level of $5 trillion, we need to grow continuously at 9% for six years from now. That is the challenge before the economy. Jobs and employment will come from growth. They are not independent of growth. Will policymakers eschew other considerations and focus only on growth?
📰 Stopping the slide of health care in India
Policymakers need to focus on the larger picture with steps being taken to reclaim the space under public care
•India’s health care is a dark echo chamber. It is 70% private and 30% public in a country where 80% people do not have any protection for health and the out-of-pocket expense is as high as 62%. With public spending at 1.13% of GDP and a huge shortage of health-care workers particularly nurses and midwives, policy moves and plans appear like a sound in emptiness. The novel coronavirus pandemic has revealed the mismatch between the overwhelming presence of the not so well-to-do and private health care with its revenue modelling that borders more on greed and rent gouging.
The system now
•Whenever the market leaves out the majority or has an incentive to cream off, the public sector would have to step in for the allocation and production of health services. The fact is 85% of the population cannot afford high cost, corporate private health care. Where demand is created by the latter by homogenising all submarkets such as preventive, general, specialists, emergency and remedial services — where inducement is the norm — the exploitation of the unsuspecting is inevitable . While too little is being done too slowly to have any impact, private hospitals gain under the social insurance scheme in the interregnum..
•Even with avowedly 12 crore card holders under Ayushman Bharat, only 1.27 crore people have taken advantage of the scheme. Private sector health care is driven by return on capital. What makes insurance and private health care an egregious combination is that the insurance backup incentivises hospitals to expand the bill but the patients do not get attended to in their best interests. The agents of the government, on the other hand, have an incentive for driving down the price of procedures; as a result, hospitals selectively offer some services and procedures (while denying some). But the ceiling level of the insurance gets claimed regardless in the interest of the hospital.
•When the government adjudicates the claim without having the capacity to do so under a trust model, the system will unravel sooner rather than later. Under Obamacare, in the United States, where professionals with expertise in health-care cost carried out the scrutiny of unnecessary procedures and interventions, problems were encountered often despite inherent superiority in the match up.
•Social insurance has solved the pooling equilibrium problem when the majority has an affordability problem. While the issue of asymmetric information gets ironed out, the inefficient behaviour which is associated with moral hazard still remains. The doctor and patient are not constrained by the ability to pay and while the marginal private cost is zero, the social cost can be high. Consumption is high for those health-care services which are often inefficient because of supplier-induced demand created and provided by doctors and hospitals which have superior knowledge, compared to patients. They encourage patients to demand tests and interventions, though the improved quality of care and outcomes are uncertain.
Health economics
•This pervasive demand inducement has an impact in terms of increases in health expenditure. This results in an upward bias in insurance premium which in turn creates a fiscal externality in the long term. In health economics, where competitive equilibrium often does not exist, the behaviour of a private corporate hospital is skewed in favour of profitability. Any attempt to cover the non-poor and the rich will result in advantageous selection for those better-off crowding out the poor.
•In any case, insurance of secondary and tertiary care pushes out long-term investment by the state and people and leads to the continued neglect of primary health care. Finally, a social insurance scheme of such type with our demographic profile only prospers at the cost of neglecting public hospitals. It is deeply erroneous and problematic.
•India’s health problem has a 80:20 rule; 20% of people can afford modern health care, 40% cannot afford it at all and the other 40%, the so-called non-poor, pay with difficulty. Nearly 70 million of the non-poor slide into poverty on a year-to-year basis. Because of the problem of access, affordability, absence of quality manpower and the rent-seeking behaviour of staff, more than 80% of people routinely reach Registered Medical Practitioners who are not trained to treat patients. But they routinely prescribe antibiotics and steroids for quick relief. The country could be sitting on a dormant volcano of antibiotic and steroid immunity.
•There are three options here. Ramp up the number of doctors with counterpart obligation to serve in rural areas. The result is uncertain with far greater career options in the private sector (with its better infrastructure which is required for job satisfaction). Second is to revive the Licentiate Medical Practitioner as we had before Independence in the rural areas. This requires starting it de novo with the attendant resistance. The third one is to empower graduates of BSc (Nursing) to be nursing practitioners — as prevalent in many countries. In any case, nurses have been able to deal with a large number of cases independently in government facilities in understaffed primary health centres (PHCs) where the doctor is either mostly absent or available for a few hours. From the gender perspective too, this is preferable from the angle of maternal and child health
The neglect of primary care
•While the primacy of primary health care is emphasised by everyone, work on the ground does not bear it out. Admittedly, it is the critical piece of health care but government funding is disturbingly skewed against it. Primary health care should receive three times more allocation in the budget and doctor and paramedic strength should be doubled merely on the basis of population increase. If necessary, doctors can be given incentives in terms of extra salary and post graduate seat preference, but in parallel, given penalties for absenteeism for rural posting.
Staff ratio
•But the most important thing is that States should be incentivised to carry out the appointments of health workers and doctors. It is not common knowledge yet that India’s public system has a shortage of nurses too. The ratio of 0.6 nurses per doctor while the World Health Organization specification is three nurses per doctor. In States such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and other north Indian States where the percentage of nurses is abysmally low, the health outcome is understandably the poorest. PHCs should be well-staffed and well-provisioned through a reasonable fee which will cover at least part of the cost. Once the services become predictable, people will return to these health facilities.
•We lose sight of the wood because we have let trees come in the way and we are busy edifying them instead. Can we get real and work with the bigger picture of health care?
📰 Losing the plot on women’s safety
The Maharashtra government’s Shakti Act takes a myopic view of the problem of sexual violence
•Most governments, when faced with the question of improving women’s safety, inevitably turn to enacting new laws rather than ensuring a more effective legal system. The Maha Vikas Aghadi government in Maharashtra seems no different, however well-meaning it may be.
•The Maharashtra Shakti Criminal Law (Maharashtra Amendment) Bill, 2020, and the accompanying Special Courts and Machinery for Implementation of Maharashtra Shakti Criminal Law follow the same cliché of harsher punishment, more authorities, and wider definitions. The Bills’ content reflects the absence of a larger consultative process and lack of understanding of existing criminal laws.
•For any criminal justice system to be effective, fair and just laws, a robust investigative mechanism, a dynamic judiciary and adequate infrastructure are indispensable. The criminal law amendments post the Nirbhaya case and the recommendations of the Verma Committee brought in several progressive amendments to curb violence against women and children. What is currently lacking is the infrastructure required for effective implementation. The Maharashtra government should hence focus on improving infrastructure, rather than bringing in harsher and unreasonable provisions in the guise of securing women’s safety. Contrary to the government’s stated intention of curbing violence against women, the Bills are draconian and threaten the lives of sexual assault victims.
Patriarchal ideas
•The Bill proposes punishment in cases of false complaints and acts of providing false information regarding sexual and other offences against women with the intention to humiliate, extort and defame. The only other law which has a similar provision is the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act), 2013. The provision only points to the patriarchal conception that women are manipulative liars and unworthy of being trusted. Even as most laws are indeed susceptible to misuse by individuals and authorities, no other legislation has such a provision.
•Offences against women often occur behind closed doors or at desolate places, making finding eyewitnesses difficult. Investigation and prosecution are often shabby and negligent. This results in unfair acquittals, and the victims, in turn, may be accused of having filed false complaints. A provision for punishing false complaints would result in counter cases being filed against victims, and may thus dissuade many victims of sexual assault and acid attacks from filing complaints, thereby muffling women’s voices. In a country where courts have directed women to marry their abuser, the possibility of a counter case would only make it more difficult for a woman to say ‘No’ to such a proposition.
•The other aspect of the Bill is the introduction of the death penalty for rape, acid attacks, and for rape of a minor. The amendment to the relevant sections adds that in cases where “the characteristic of the offence is heinous in nature and where adequate conclusive evidence is there and the circumstances warrant exemplary punishment”, the offence shall be punishable with death. However, it does not define what cases would qualify as being “heinous in nature”, thus leaving it open to the interpretation of courts. To date, courts have held cases of varying standards to be “heinous” and there is no uniform benchmark to identify what circumstances make an offence “heinous”. Further, the death penalty has been in the statute books for a long time, but there is no evidence affirming its potency as a deterrent in preventing crimes. It is time legislators realise that death penalty is not the absolute answer to the issue of rape — only the certainty that there will be effective investigation, trial, and therefore
punishment, can act as an effective deterrent. Contrary to the State’s understanding, the death penalty will only mean that an accused may not stop at just rape and may murder the victim to get rid of the only witness, as the punishment for both will be the same. Importantly, studies have shown that often, the accused in sexual assault crimes are relatives or persons known to the victims. If the punishment for the crime is death, then not only the family of the victim, but the victim herself may choose not to report the crime or may turn hostile during the trial. Research has also indicated that judges are unlikely to convict a person when the punishment is death.
•Another provision stipulating that investigation should be completed within 15 days, the trial in 30 days and the appeal in 45 days, even if well-intentioned, will only result in improper investigation and trial. This timeline is glaringly insufficient for gathering all evidence or conducting a just trial and would result in hasty functioning and miscarriage of justice. Similar existing mechanisms for speedy and effective investigation and trial under the Juvenile Justice Act and the POCSO Act are rarely adhered to as neither the police nor the courts have the infrastructure to comply with these timeframes. Further, the Bill does not state what happens if the investigation, trial, or appeal is not completed within the prescribed time. In the current system, police officers are saddled with a large number of cases at the same time. There are not enough prosecutors at trial courts and in high courts; most of them are assigned three-four courts at a time and they prosecute hundreds of cases simultaneously. Unless these systemic problems are solved, new laws will only be a facade.
Redundant proposals
•Lastly, the proposed amendments seem to have been recommended without considering similar, already-existing provisions in the criminal laws. For instance, the Bill seeks to introduce Section 354E (Harassment of Women by any mode of communication) into the IPC, aiming to punish intimidation of women through social media and electronic platforms. Similar provisions exist under the IPC and the Information Technology Act, 2000, which comprehensively cover all the offences mentioned under the new section. Similarly, the provision to punish public servants for failing to assist in investigation or perform their assigned duties is also sufficiently covered under the IPC, in terms of contravention of law or disobedience of orders and duties. Hence, in effect, these proposed amendments are of little significance. It would be more pragmatic if the government focused on improving the implementation of existing laws and infrastructure.
•The Bill was opposed by several women’s rights organisations and lawyers from Maharashtra, which seems to have led the State government to refer it to a joint select committee. This is a welcome move and it would be in the interest of women, and justice itself, if the committee has a larger consultative process, engages with stakeholders and experts to understand the existing criminal laws, and reconsiders passing this regressive legislation.
