📰 ‘Pakistan’s theatrics at the UN pose no challenge to India’
As India takes its seat at the Security Council, India’s Permanent Representative at the UN says Delhi must guard against attempts to dilute the fight against terrorism
•Counter-terror cooperation and United Nations reform are at the top of the agenda, says India’s Permanent Representative at the UN, T.S. Tirumurti , in a written interview as India takes its seat for the next two years at the UN Security Council, its eighth stint as a non-permanent representative from Friday.
As a member of the UNSC beginning January 1, what will India’s first intervention be?
•The Security Council, being the primary organ responsible for peace and security, is theoretically supposed to work round the clock. So, in a way, the clock starts ticking after midnight of December 31. That said, the Tunisian Presidency of the Security Council has planned for two High-Level events in the first two weeks — one on Peace and Security in Fragile Contexts and the other on International Cooperation in Combating Terrorism, where we expect to participate at a high level.
Would India use the UNSC tenure to push for the adoption of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism? What kind of resolutions do you hope to see the UN adopting on the issue of countering terrorism, and in the application of the 1267 committee on ISIL/Al Qaeda?
•Counter-terrorism is a major priority area for India when we are on the Security Council. As for the 1267 Sanctions Committee on ISIL (Da’esh), it is important that its decisions are taken in an impartial and apolitical manner and those that refuse to implement its decisions are held accountable. We should guard against attempts by certain member states to politicise the work of the 1267 Committee thereby, again, diluting our fight against terrorism.
•The inability of the United Nations to agree on a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) remains one of the glaring shortcomings in the international legislative framework which could have boosted enforcement efforts to destroy safe havens of terrorists, their financial flows and their support networks.
Could tensions between India and China at the LAC at present spill over into UNSC as well?
•Bilateral issues are best handled bilaterally. As far as we are concerned, we are entering the Security Council with a positive and progressive agenda. We look forward to working constructively with all members and we do hope that we can do so with all members in a similar spirit of constructive cooperation.
In the past year, the UN Secretary General and UN agencies have expressed concern over a number of India’s internal matters such as Jammu & Kashmir, Citizenship Amendment Act, the Hathras rape case, restrictions on NGOs, etc. Will India’s position at the UNSC curb such activism from UN agencies or will there be a greater spotlight on India?
•These issues concern India’s internal affairs. The officials who have made comments on these matters were obviously overstepping their mandates. However, we have never hesitated to explain our position on all such issues in detail when questioned since we are dispelling ill-informed pronouncements, motivated or otherwise. We sincerely hope that irrespective of whether we are in the Security Council or not, these UN agencies restrain themselves and deal only with those matters which are within their mandate.
Pakistan has also forwarded a “dossier” of allegations against India on the issue of terrorism in the run up to the UNSC term. How much of a challenge are such actions by Pakistan?
•No country or international organisation would humour anyone inciting terrorism and encouraging separatism within UN member states under whatever justification. The laughable attempt of Pakistan submitting a “dossier”, is yet another farce played out on the international community. A delegation that is universally acknowledged as the epicentre of global terror and refuses to take any action against the terror factories that it continues to churn out has absolutely no credibility. There are, for obvious reasons, no takers in the international community for what is obviously another one of its anti-India propaganda exercises.
•As far as India is concerned, such theatrics do not pose any challenge.
Can UNSC reform, that India has called for, be achieved during India’s two-year tenure at the UNSC?
•The reality is that, while the overwhelming majority of UN member states firmly support the comprehensive reforms of the Security Council, a handful of status-quoists have consistently opposed any reform. Of course, the reform of the Security Council is not driven by the Security Council but through the so-called Intergovernmental Negotiation (IGN) process under the General Assembly.
•We are determined to work towards immediate and time-bound text-based negotiations. India’s credentials are known to all. However, our two years in the Council will be one more opportunity to demonstrate to the global community how important it is for the Security Council to be more representative and reflective of contemporary realities.
If there is one single outcome/resolution that you hope more than others will be achieved by the end of India’s UNSC tenure in 2022, what would that be?
•While questions like these don’t have easy answers, if there is a single objective which I would like to achieve by 2022 – it is to show the world the importance of “reformed multilateralism” and inevitably the important place that India enjoys in that construct for promoting international peace and security.
Public spending looks encouraging, may spur economic activity, help India exit recession in Q4: ICRA
•India’s fiscal deficit shot up to 135.1% of the Budget target of nearly Rs. 8 lakh crore for 2020-21, in the 8 months from April to November 2020, as per data released by the Controller General of Accounts on Thursday. The figure had stood at 114.8% a year earlier.
•Revenue deficit, which had crossed 125% in the first half of the year, almost touched 140% of the Budget target by November, with just about 40% of the annual estimated revenue receipts coming in. The fiscal deficit had reached 120% of the year’s target, or Rs. 9.53 lakh crore by the end of October. It rose to Rs. 10.8 lakh crore in November.
•Government spending, including capital expenditure considered critical to revive the economy, remained lower than a year earlier, though there was a month-on-month uptick in November.
•Only 62.7% of the budgeted expenditure for the year had been spent by November, lower than the 65.3% recorded a year earlier. Capital expenditure fared even worse, touching 58.5% of target by November, compared to 63.3%. “With four months to go in the year, a lot depends on how the government manages its expenditure,” said Madan Sabnavis, chief economist at CARE Ratings. “If all the allocations mentioned in the Atmanirbhar programmes are executed, then fiscal deficit will increase to around 9% of GDP — a deficit of around Rs. 17-18 lakh crore.” ICRA principal economist Aditi Nayar said the fiscal deficit for the year will reach Rs. 14.5 lakh crore or 7.5% of its nominal GDP estimate; she saw some encouragement from public spending in November.
•Monthly outgo expanded year-on-year by “32% for revenue expenditure and nearly 250% on a small base for capital expenditure. A sustenance of this trend will bolster economic activity, and help the Indian economy exit the recession in the coming quarter,” she said.
•Mr. Sabnavis said higher government spending was seen in the health and consumer affairs Ministries, but several allocations announced may not finally be invoked this year, which can lower the deficit by Rs. 1 lakh-Rs. 2 lakh crore. “We do not expect compensations on the revenue side where tax revenue at best is maintaining the monthly target.”
Lower receipts to blame
•Sunil Kumar Sinha, principal economist at India Ratings and Research — which expects FY21 fiscal deficit at 7% of GDP: “The expenditure pattern suggests that expansion in fiscal deficit is not due to increased expenditure which has been muted so far. The higher fiscal deficit is primarily originating from lower receipts.”
•Corporate tax collections were Rs. 1.03 lakh crore lower year-on-year and income tax collections were down Rs. 33,000 crore. Non-tax revenue has also been lower so far at just about 32% of budgeted amount, Mr. Sabnavis pointed out.
📰 Ending the deadlock
Reforms, however necessary, cannot be done without consultations with all stakeholders
•Farmers protesting against three agriculture reform laws, and on related issues, have reached a partial agreement with the Centre on Wednesday, but the main points of contention remain unresolved. The government has agreed to not penalise farmers for stubble burning and to safeguard power subsidies. Farmers have decided to continue the agitation until the three laws are repealed and their demand for a legal guarantee for MSPs for farm produce is met. Farmer leaders will meet with Central Ministers again on January 4. Flexibility by farmers and a reconciliatory approach by the government led to the partial agreement, but the core concerns regarding the laws and MSP are not amenable to easy resolution. The government has continued to propagate the laws — the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act — as measures that will enhance agriculture incomes. The Centre is so sure of the promise of these reforms that it did not even attempt to build a political consensus around them beforehand. Subsidised power and lopsided incentive structures have built cropping patterns that are no longer sustainable. Large sections of farmers meanwhile continue to languish in debt and fear. Farmer concerns are not uniform across India.
•The ongoing agitation is being spearheaded by farmers from Punjab and Haryana, who have been big beneficiaries of government procurement. The current agitation, its apparent energy and resolve notwithstanding, is geographically and programmatically limited. It now faces the risk of losing steam or spinning out of control. At least some groups that are part of the agitation currently might favour more flexibility. The government is reluctant to agree to a legal guarantee of MSP because the demand is unrelated to the laws. The government is also hoping to tire out the agitators. Finding a way out will be better for both sides. Though a completely satisfactory resolution of all issues raised by the farmers is not possible immediately, the government must reassure them that honest efforts will continue to address them even if the protests are formally ended for now. Reforms are necessary to ensure that India has a productive, sustainable and remunerative agriculture sector. While all stakeholders appear to agree on this principle, they diverge on questions of detail. The reports of the National Commission on Farmers, chaired by Prof. M.S. Swaminathan, and other government committees have suggested solutions. The Centre must engage with the farmers, political parties and States on the economic and environmental issues at stake. That is the best route to effective reforms.
📰 A constant vigil
Constant monitoring is the only way India can build up its defences against new virus strains
•In less than a month, it will be a year since India confirmed its first SARS-CoV-2 cases in Kerala. From then and now, India looks infinitely more prepared in terms of testing capacity, vaccine candidates in development, public awareness and the kaleidoscopic experiences of those who have been exposed to the virus. However, the report of the new variant from the U.K. and confirmed in at least 25 travellers from there puts India back at the base of a new learning curve. First reported to WHO on December 14, the SARS-CoV-2 VUI 202012/01, or the ‘U.K. strain’, was detected only following an unexpected case spike in South East England. The U.K.’s consortium of labs periodically sequences 5%-10% of the entire genome of SARS-CoV-2 isolates from the population. From October 5 to December 13, over 50% of isolates were identified as the variant strain in South East England. This variant has at least 14 significant mutations, which could affect healthy cells or worsen compromised immune systems. Studies show that the virus variant, while not linked yet to increasing mortality, is more transmissible than other variants, thus indirectly contributing to a higher death toll. Even though the world has only now woken up to this variant, it may have been circulating in the U.K. as early as October, and with people flying on the U.K.-India route, it is quite likely that this may have already caused its circulation in India. This puts the country right back to January and February when attention was trained towards possible carriers from China and SE Asia, when it was travellers from West Asia and Europe who led to the case explosion after March. Then, India was just about figuring out how to mass produce and, more importantly, distribute RT-PCR kits and paraphernalia required for detection. Now, Indian scientists have to grapple with a new beast called mass genomic surveillance. For some years now, India has had genome sequencing machines and the personnel to track and identify new variants. However, like in the early days of RT-PCR, there are not enough of them to sequence the 4%-5% of isolates in the population like what the U.K. does. India has genome sequenced around 5,000 isolates compared to the U.K.’s 137,000.
•That India has formed a consortium of leading genomics labs to make genome surveillance a routine continuous exercise is to be welcomed. With 2021 likely to be the year of the vaccine, with a rollout at an unprecedented scale, scientists have already warned that it is possible that some virus strains, or escape mutants, may change enough to evade the vaccine’s immune response — as observed in the case of hepatitis B. Therefore, continuous monitoring and developing suitable detection kits are the only way India can shore up its defences against this pandemic and those of the future.
📰 Unmasked, reflections on the pandemic and life
People need to draw the right lessons from the experiences of the last several months, as individuals and a collective
•Masked living for the last 10 months to stave off the novel coronavirus has raised questions: of the purpose and the meaning of life. Some of the most memorable moments of life flow from connection. But we covered our mouth and nose and kept a distance from others for most part of last year. Is survival and doing some work for it the sole purpose of life? The COVID-19 pandemic forced us to live restricted lives for most part of the last year. Reflection is more conscious during such confinement. I too underwent isolation and reflection. What is the purpose of life and is there meaning to the way we are living? Such questions filled our minds. Life has been unmasked as we masked ourselves to survive.
On the purpose of life
•The purpose of life is to be happy, said the Dalai Lama. But what is happiness and how does one attain that state and stay put? In our quest for life, besides wearing masks and maintaining a safe distance, working from home became an integral part of the universal COVID-19 culture that emerged last year. But is work the only purpose of life and source of happiness? Nothing gives a person a sense of purpose than a distinct understanding of what she does. Are we so enlightened to pursue work without being conscious and concerned about the results and find meaning in it? If work is a means of survival, are we finding meaning in it?
•Life is a battle against uncertainties and challenges. As the most evolved of living organisms and living in the most complex order of economic, scientific and technological interconnectedness, humanity has witnessed a heightened share of such battles during 2020, the year of the pandemic. How does one cope with such a situation and live with equanimity and balance? The pandemic has unleashed an internal churning about the purpose and meaning of life as we all pressed a pause button. It dawned on us that life cannot be on the highway all the time. Philosophical reflection was forced on us.
•Plato said philosophy is a process of constant questioning that takes the form of dialogue. While coping with modern life, we have stopped talking to ourselves. The pandemic forced us to think about the way we are living and ought to live. It has underlined the need to revisit and, if required, redefine the purpose and meaning of life. This is all about reorienting our mindsets as the pandemic taught us a few lessons of life.
A journey as challenge
•There is no objective meaning of life written in the stars, in a holy book or in sequences of DNA. Birth and death are not subject to our volition. The principal challenge is to navigate the journey in between these two points, defining its purpose and finding a meaning. The pandemic has shattered the arrogance of humans of being supreme and the master of all living and non-living forms around. The principal lesson learned is that we are only part of a larger design and have got to live that way, and not at the expense of others.
•The forgotten ideas of oneness, interconnectedness and the intelligent laws that govern the universe have come to the fore once again. The regular outbreak of viruses including the latest one in Wuhan city has brought out the consequences of growing interference with nature, with attendant disturbances in the habitations of the different living forms. The wild is forced to have an eye on human habitation. Humans are only a part of the incredible scheme of coexistence that we call nature. The issue is not about saving nature. It is more about aligning with it and understanding how we are one.
•In the troubled order of uncertainties of various kinds, the major challenge for individuals is to correct confusion and puzzlements about oneself and the world. The philosophy of life is an overall vision and attitude towards life and the purpose of it. It helps one in building principles in fighting the adversities of life and living in happiness. Happiness means different things to different people and it is an individual’s call. Seneca in his Moral Letters said philosophy offers counsel. It strengthens one’s ability to remain steady in the chaos and rush of life.
•A specific purpose of life determines the choices one makes and influences behaviour toward the surroundings. These choices and behaviour determine the happiness that life should aim at. Choices include those we are willing to give up to remain sane and purposeful.
The personal experience
•During the COVID-19 enforced confinement, and more so during the post-infection isolation, I reflected on my journey so far. I have assessed the journey till now, its vicissitudes, how I have handled different situations and whether I could have been different and done better in different contexts. I did find that life was at a fast pace, was too involved in work and should have spent a little more time with the family. I could have struck a different life-work balance. I have evolved and grown with the times and the experiences that came along. I too have had my share of testing times and handled them in my own ways. Spiritualism came in handy on many occasions to find solutions and happiness when tested. It sprung from within that I should focus more on social service after a long innings in politics and networking change agents for further galvanising the change.
One’s contribution is key
•We have an individual form for a limited time like a wave. We live only once and have to live in the best possible manner. Human nature to be happy leads us to search for peace both within and without. Evolution from selfishness to self-realisation promotes common good. Living in moderation is the best lesson of the experience of the pandemic. Living with equanimity and harmoniously with all beings, our surroundings and society is ideal living. We need to talk to ourselves and define the purpose and meaning of life based on the lessons of the last several months and individual predilections. One is the master of one’s life and the path to its meaning. The meaning of life lies in contributing to the flourishing of humanity and the nature around for common welfare. Sharing and caring is the essence of our age old ethos. This confers a certain meaning to life.
•The Bhagavad Gita says of life; “Whatever happened, happened for the good; Whatever is happening, is happening for the good; and whatever will happen, will also happen for the good.” This warrants us to evolve to find equilibrium to face the unending uncertainties.
•A new strain of the novel coronavirus is being talked about even as we are coming to terms with the parent. Uncertainties never cease. We need to tune ourselves to face them with stillness to stay in a happy state of mind and live with a purpose from which the meaning flows.
The spin-offs
•The handling of the pandemic during the dark year, 2020, annus horribilis , has some positives. While it normally takes several years to come up with a vaccine, the scientific community has succeeded in finding some candidates for COVID-19 in less than a year, much to the relief of all. The vaccine has begun to be administered already in some parts of the world. Vaccinating people all across the globe is the next big challenge.
•India has risen admirably as a nation to fight the pandemic. A parliamentary panel that examined various aspects of its handling has appreciated the grit and the determination that underlined this massive national effort and has complimented all stakeholders for the same even as it chronicled the hardship caused. The way the spread of virus and mortality has been kept under check are no mean achievements.
📰 Has the Special Marriage Act failed to protect inter-faith couples?
It has not achieved the kind of success it was intended to achieve for many reasons
•The Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954, is seen as a progressive law enacted to help inter-faith couples. But with States such as Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh framing laws that target inter-faith marriage, the procedural requirements of the SMA — such as the need to give prior notice, and allowance for ‘objections’ — seem to be undermining its original intent by opening the doors to violent moral policing by vigilante groups. Can the SMA come to the rescue of inter-faith couples, who, in addition to the old challenge of parental opposition, today also have to contend with the bogey of ‘love jihad’? Faizan Mustafa and Veena Gowda explore this question in a conversation moderated by G. Sampath . Edited excerpts:
Why was this legislation needed in the first place?
•Faizan Mustafa:The original Special Marriage Act was enacted in 1872. It was moved by an eminent jurist and Legislative Council member named Henry Maine. It was enacted following a campaign launched in 1860 by Brahmo Samaj, especially Keshab Chandra Sen, for simpler marriage ceremonies. But it had one problem: it required that two people of different faiths who wish to get married must renounce their respective religions. By 19th century standards, the mere fact that this law paved the way for inter-faith marriages was a good first step.
•But its requirement of renouncing one’s religion was not compatible with modern ideas of liberalism, individualism and autonomy of the individual. So the 1954 law replaced this 1872 Act, and the requirement to renounce one’s religion was removed. Basically, this law was the first step towards a Uniform Civil Code. The thinking was that if you wanted a liberal, modern, secular and progressive law, let us start the experiment on a voluntary basis. So, those going for an inter-faith marriage, as well as others, could register under the SMA. The effect of the SMA is that once your marriage is registered under it, your religion’s personal laws won’t apply.
How would you assess the SMA’s impact so far?
•Veena Gowda:It has not been sufficiently used. It is often used when people are going abroad. For two Hindus married under the Hindu Marriage Act, the certificate used to be called a ‘Memorandum of Marriage’, which was not recognised by certain countries while issuing a visa. So, people would then register their marriage under the SMA. Also, earlier, under the Indian Divorce Act, applicable to Christians, mutual consent was not available. Only registering one’s marriage under the SMA gave them the right to divorce by mutual consent, so they would be advised to register their marriage under the SMA. The SMA was also used for inter-religious marriages, but not so often. I think the process and procedure are seen as tedious.
•FM:The SMA did not achieve the kind of success it was intended to achieve. But that is a comment on how unprepared we are, as a society, when it comes to uniform laws. The fact that very few marriages get registered under the SMA demonstrates that society is not yet ready to involve public institutions in what are purely private relationships.
•At the same time, if someone wants to use the SMA for the purpose of inter-faith marriage, the state has no business asking them to put up a notice informing the whole world whom they want to marry. When the SMA was enacted, the notice requirement was meant to ensure that the man did not already have a spouse and does not marry a minor. But now it has become an invitation to moral policing by right-wing groups. The Supreme Court has finally admitted a petition where the constitutionality of this provision will be examined. If the right to privacy judgment is taken into consideration, there is no way this notice requirement can be sustained as constitutional.
•VG:I would say, rather than uniformity, equality is the real issue. For instance, what are the matrimonial rights that women have within a marriage? It’s just a right to maintenance, and given the manner in which courts pass these orders, it is usually Rs. 500 or Rs. 1,500. And we have still not progressed towards what we would like as matrimonial property. The state should focus on what rights women can get within a marriage, and aim for a more equal, progressive law and not engage itself so much with the manner in which marriages are performed. How I wish to legalise my marriage should be of no concern to the state.
Can the SMA do a better job of protecting inter-faith couples?
•VG:A marriage is a civil contract. Civil law is not meant to protect people against violence or against societal reaction. What does the SMA provide for? It says that if you follow the procedure and register your marriage, the consequences of the marriage will be determined by the SMA. It is not there to protect you. But the situation has changed, and people seem to be watching and observing who’s marrying whom, but the law did not anticipate this.
•Also, this need for protection is not merely in the case of inter-faith marriage, it’s there in the case of inter-caste marriages as well. If a so-called higher caste person is marrying someone from a marginalised caste, then, there have been writ petitions filed over the years, asking the court for protection because the family will react, and there could be so-called honour killings. But offering this kind of protection is not the role of civil law, as it then becomes criminal law, and the state must provide protection. On the contrary, with the SMA, the state seems to be saying we’re going to increase surveillance on inter-faith marriages.
How so?
•VG:What does the SMA actually envisage? If I’m getting married to somebody, I’ll go fill a form, I give a notice. If these essentials are complied with, then they have to register it. But over a period of time, certain States have decided that if it’s an inter-religious marriage, then the parents will be informed. Today, what do the ‘love jihad’ ordinances do? If it’s an inter-religious marriage, and I want to convert, then I have to fill a declaration form, go before a magistrate, and the magistrate will conduct an inquiry. In the form, you have to fill in all the details about your age, address, etc., which makes inter-faith couples extremely insecure. So, the spirit of what the SMA was meant to be is not only being diluted, these ‘love jihad’ laws are completely contrary to it.
But isn’t it the other way round — that it’s only because the SMA is unable to do its job in cases of inter-faith marriage that one party ends up converting so that they can marry under a personal law?
•VG:As they say, in India, you don’t just marry your partner, you marry the family itself. But when it comes to rights, then you’re married only to the partner! So it’s not only about the procedure of the SMA. Society itself is so patriarchal that whether a marriage is inter-caste or inter-religious, it is always the woman who’s adjusting to the family that she is going into – it’s the woman who leaves her natal home to go into the matrimonial home. So, in that sense you are always accommodating the family that you are marrying into. So the SMA is not the only problem.
•FM:People look down upon SMA marriages as ‘sarkari’ marriages. That’s also why many do not register their marriages and just go for a private Hindu ceremony or a nikah. The acceptance of the involvement of a state institution in marriage is still very low in our society. People think marriage is a personal matter. Today, however, the state is trying to dictate terms in this purely personal matter. Which religion one believes in, and whether one changes religion — it’s none of the state’s business to know or monitor. One may convert to another religion because of marriage, or even for no reason. There is no authority under our law available to the state to examine the cause or rationality of somebody’s conversion. Yet, strangely, more than half a dozen States in India have these anti-conversion laws, and they all have titled these ‘freedom of religion laws’ even though they curtail religious freedom. Moreover, hardly any convictions been reported under these laws.
•The word “propagate” in Article 25 of the Constitution was inserted to assure Christian minorities. For them, it is an article of the faith to take the gospel to the other people. But we then got a regressive Supreme Court judgment in Rev. Stanislaus (1977) in which the Court held that you cannot convert because ‘propagation’ of a religion does not extend to conversion. In fact, India’s foremost constitutional expert H.M. Seervai said that this judgment is “productive of great public mischief” and must be overruled. This judgment should be reviewed as it is now contrary to the privacy judgment .
The SMA is a Central law, and the anti-conversion ordinances are happening at the State level. Don’t they conflict with each other?
•VG:Whoever chooses to register their marriage under the SMA may continue to do so. The anti-conversion laws occupy a different space: they talk about conversion, which the SMA does not concern itself with. So, there is no conflict.
Is it possible to amend these anti-conversion laws so that they cease to be patriarchal and anti-women?
•VG:We know the history of conversions in our country. They were, in a way, also to get away from very oppressive situations. So, these laws ought to go.
•FM:This whole bogey of ‘love jihad’ is now almost 90 years old. It was in the 1920s that people in U.P. started writing that there is a concerted conspiracy by the Muslims to outnumber Hindus by marrying Hindu women and then producing a great number of children. This is the work of right-wing organisations. Though there have been some progressive judgments of the divisional benches of the Allahabad High Court, protecting the rights of adult individuals to marry whoever they want, the U.P. government promulgated an ordinance that undermines constitutional rights, particularly of Hindu women. The primary purpose of these ordinances is to discipline Hindu women and control their bodies and sexuality. It undermines their agency.
•Also, it is problematic to have this notion of “sanctity of marriage” incorporated into law. It’s there even in the SMA. There is a provision under Section 29 of the SMA, which says that you cannot file a petition for divorce within one year of your marriage except when there is extreme hardship. If marriage is a civil contract, and if parties think that they cannot live together because they are not compatible, why have this restriction?
•Under the influence of the ‘sacramental’ nature of Hindu marriage, our courts have been over-emphasising this element of “saving” a marriage — this should not be the sole objective. Their goal should be to ensure that two individuals happily live together, and if they cannot happily live together, let them gracefully walk out of a painful marriage. Sustaining a marriage should not be the concern of the public authorities, the courts, or of the law.
•VG:We have to think about where our legal system is moving. On the one hand, we were thinking of the possibility of same sex marriages, of making marriages contractual, and if we can have matrimonial property. On the other, we are getting laws that control which religion you follow when you intend to marry, and decide for you who you can fall in love with and who you can’t. This is not two steps back but hundreds of steps back.
📰 Acclimatising to climate risks
This year, policymakers, industry captains and citizens must make climate proof choices
•Several parts of north India are in the grip of a severe cold wave. While winter may be longer and harsher in some regions due to La Niña, forecasters suggest that 2021 would still be among the Earth’s hottest years recorded. Rising temperatures have led to a sharp increase in climate extreme events in recent years.
•A recent report by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water found that 75% of districts in India, home to over half the population, were vulnerable to extreme climate risks. While India witnessed 250 extreme climate events between 1970 and 2005, the country recorded 310 extreme climate events after 2005 alone. Further, between 1990 and 2019, India incurred losses exceeding $100 billion. Also, the intensity of floods increased eightfold and that of associated events such as landslides and heavy rainfall increased by over 20 times since 1970. Drought-affected districts have increased by an yearly average of 13 times over the last two decades. The frequency of cyclones has also doubled. Over 40% of Indian districts now show a swapping trend: flood-prone areas are becoming drought-prone, and vice-versa.
•At the recent Climate Ambition Summit, the UN Secretary-General underscored the importance of adaptation and resilience to mainstream climate actions, and tagged 2021 as a “make it or break it” year. What should India do in 2021 to enhance its resilience and adaptive capacity against extreme climate events?
Building climate resilience
•First, India should create an Environment and Health De-risking Mission to increase emergency preparedness, secure critical resources and build resilient infrastructure and governance systems to counter the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme climate events. The Mission should also focus on democratising local climate-related and weather-related data along with integrating risk projections in national, sub-national and district disaster and climate plans. Another priority would be restoration, revival, and recreation of traditional climate-resilient practices, with a special focus on indigenous communities, often on the front lines of ecosystem conservation.
•Second, India needs a comprehensive Climate Risk Atlas to present a risk-informed decision-making toolkit for policymakers at the national, State, and district level. Such an Atlas should identify, assess and project chronic and acute risks at a granular level to better prepare against extreme climate events, urban heat stress, water stress, crop loss, vector-borne diseases, and biodiversity collapse. The Atlas would also help in assessing the resilience and adaptation capabilities of communities and business. Further, it would help in climate-proofing critical infrastructure.
•Third, to finance climate action at scale, risk financing instruments and risk retention and identification tools should be supplemented by contingency and adaptation funds such as the Green Climate Fund. This will enhance the public finance pool and gear up efficient allocation across sectors at risk by mobilising investments on critical infrastructures and resilient community actions. The Climate Ambition Summit also called for enhancing adaptation financing by 50% versus its current share of 20% of the total pool of climate financing.
•Finally, as the permanent chair of the recently formed Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure, India should play a pivotal role in attracting private investments into climate-proofing of infrastructure. It should also promote adaptation-based infrastructure investment decision making in these countries. Further, an equal focus should be on championing a culture of localised risk assessments among members from the Global South.
•Ignoring low probability risks could be catastrophic for the economy as well as society. This year, policymakers, industry captains and common citizens must make climate proof choices.
