📰 Indians value religious freedom and tolerance but not great at integration, finds Pew survey
South India more inclusive, says Pew Center report on religious attitudes in the country.
•Most Indians, cutting across religions, feel they enjoy religious freedom, value religious tolerance, and regard respect for all religions as central to what India is as a nation. At the same time, in what might seem like a contradiction, the majority in each of the major religious groups show a marked preference for religious segregation and “want to live separately”, according to a nation-wide survey on religious attitudes, behaviours and beliefs conducted by Pew Research Center, a non-profit based in Washington DC.
•For instance, the report found that 91% of Hindus felt they have religious freedom, while 85% of them believed that respecting all religions was very important ‘to being truly Indian’. Also, for most Hindus, religious tolerance was not just a civic virtue but also a religious value, with 80% of them stating that respecting other religions was an integral aspect of ‘being Hindu’. Other religions showed similar numbers for freedom of religion and religious tolerance. While 89% of Muslims and Christians said they felt free to practice their religion, the comparative figures for Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains were 82%, 93%, and 85% respectively.
•On the question of religious tolerance, 78% of Muslims felt it was an essential aspect of being Indian, while 79% deemed it a part of their religious identity as Muslims. Other religious denominations scored similarly high on religious tolerance.
•The survey also revealed a number of shared beliefs that cut across religious barriers. For example, while 77% of Hindus said they believed in karma, an identical percentage of Muslims said so as well. Also, 32% of Christians (along with 81% of Hindus) believed in the purifying power of the Ganga, while the majority in all the major faiths said respecting elders is very important to their religion.
Index of religious segregation
•And yet, paradoxically, despite these shared values and a high regard for religious tolerance, the majority in all the faiths scored poorly on the metrics for religious segregation: composition of friends circle, views on stopping inter-religious marriage, and willingness to accept people of other religions as neighbours.
•The report, observing that “in India, a person’s religion is typically also the religion of that person’s close friends”, states that relatively few Indians (13%) had a mixed friends circle. Nearly half (47%) of Hindus said that all their close friends shared their religious identity, while 39% said most of their friends were fellow Hindus. The comparative figures for other faiths were 45% and 44% for Muslims, 22% and 56% for Christians, 25% and 56% for Sikhs, and 22% and 52% for Buddhists. In other words, people belonging to smaller religious groups were less likely than Hindus and Muslims to say that all their friends were of the same religion.
•On the question of inter-religious marriage, most Hindus (67%), Muslims (80%), Sikhs (59%), and Jains (66%) felt it was ‘very important’ to stop the women in their community from marrying outside their religion (similar rates of opposition to men marrying outside religion). But considerably fewer Christians (37%) and Buddhists (46%) felt this way.
•As for the third metric, the majorities in all the religious groups were, hypothetically, willing to accept members of other religious groups as neighbours, but a significant number had reservations. Among Hindus, most were willing to live near a member of a religious minority, such as Muslim (57%), a Christian (59%), or a Jain (59%). But altogether 36% of Hindus said they would not be willing to live near a Muslim, with 31% saying the same for Christians. Jains were even more likely to express such views, with 54% saying they would not accept a Muslim neighbour, and 47% saying the same about Christians.
•In contrast, Buddhists were most likely to voice acceptance of other religious groups as neighbours, with roughly 80% of them wiling to accept a Muslim, Christian, Sikh or Jain as a neighbour, and even more (89%) ready to accept a Hindu neighbour. About 78% of Muslims said they would be willing to have a Hindu as a neighbour.
•Interestingly, the survey found that Hindus who voted for the BJP in the 2019 elections tended to be less accepting of religious minorities in their neighbourhood. Only about half of the Hindus who voted for the BJP said they would accept a Muslim (51%) or a Christian (53%) as neighbours, compared with higher shares of those who voted for other parties (64% and 67% respectively).
•Geography was a key factor in determining attitudes, with people in the south of India more religiously integrated and less opposed to inter-religious marriages. People in the South “are less likely than those in other regions to say all their close friends share their religion (29%),” noted the report. Among Hindus in the South, 31% said that all their close friends were Hindu, compared to 47% of Hindus nationally. An even lower number of Muslims in the South (19%) said that all their friends were Muslim, while 45% of Muslims across the country said all their close friends were fellow Muslims.
Religious identity and nationalism
•The survey also found that Hindus tend to see their religious identity and Indian national identity as closely intertwined, with 64% saying that it was ‘very important’ to be Hindu to be “truly” Indian. Most Hindus (59%) also linked Indian identity with being able to speak Hindi. And among Hindus who believed it was very important to be Hindu in order to be truly Indian, a full 80% also believed it was very important to speak Hindi to be truly Indian. About 60% of Hindu voters who linked Indian identity to being Hindu and speaking in Hindi voted for the BJP, compared with only a third among Hindu voters for whom these aspects did not matter for national identity.
Southern deviation
•The survey found that nationally, three-in-ten Hindus took both these positions: linking being Hindu and speaking Hindi to being Indian, and voting for BJP. But again, there was a clear geographical skew in their distribution: while roughly half of the Hindu voters in northern and central India fell into this category, only 5% of Hindu voters in the South did so.
•Also, Hindu nationalist sentiments were less prevalent in the South. Among Hindus, those in the South (42%) were far less likely than those in Central states (83%) or the North (69%) to say that being Hindu was very important to being truly Indian. Also, people in the South were somewhat less religious than those in other regions: 69% said religion was very important to their lives, while 92% in Central India held the same view. Only 37% of Indians in the South said they prayed every day, compared to more than half of the Indians surveyed in the other regions.
•The Pew Center’s survey of religion across India is based on nearly 30,000 face-to-face interviews of adults conducted in 17 languages from November 17, 2019 to March 23, 2020. The largest such survey in India till date, it covers the experiences and attitudes of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Sikhs and Jains.
•The themes covered by the survey include religious identity, beliefs and practices, views on Indian national identity, caste, experiences with discrimination, religious conversion, and the connection between economic development and religious observance.
It orders States to fully implement One Nation One Ration Card by same date
•A government cannot “abdicate” its duties to feed migrant workers, especially during a pandemic, merely because they did not have ration cards, the Supreme Court said in a judgment on Tuesday.
•“There is a large number of such migrants who do not possess any card. Their above disability is due to their poverty and lack of education. The State cannot abdicate its duty towards such persons, especially in the wake of the pandemic where large numbers of migrant workers are not able to get jobs which may satisfy their basic needs,” a Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah observed in an 80-page judgment.
•The court set July 31 as the deadline for the Centre and the States to ensure their “bounden duty” that none among the estimated 38 crore migrant workers, who form one-fourth the country’s population, goes hungry during the pandemic. These workers too have made “considerable contributions” to the country’s growth and economic development.
•The court ordered the State governments to frame schemes to distribute dry ration to migrant workers by July 31. “The States/Union Territories have to make extra efforts to reach migrant labourers so that no migrant labourer is denied two meals a day,” Justice Bhushan, who wrote the judgment, said.
•The Centre has to supply whatever additional quantity of food grains a State demanded. The allocation of additional food grains and running of community kitchens in prominent places to feed workers should continue throughout the pandemic, the court directed.
•Right to food, one of the “bare necessities of life”, was an intrinsic part of the right to live with dignity, the court told the government.
•It ordered all the States to fully implement the One Nation One Ration Card (ONORC) by July 31. The scheme allows migrant labourers covered under the National Food Security Act (NFSA) to access food at any fair price shop with his or her ration card in any part of the country.
‘Unpardonable apathy’
•The court slammed the Labour Ministry for its “unpardonable apathy” in not completing the work of the ₹ 45.39-crore National Database for Unorganised Workers (NDUW) portal to register and identify migrant workers and unorganised labourers to ensure their rights, welfare and food security.
•The court had ordered the Ministry to finalise the NDUW module way back in 2018. The Centre has blamed the delay on “software” problems.
•The court ordered the Centre to get its act together and complete the work on the portal by July 31. The Labour Secretary has to file a report in a month thereafter. The Centre should complete the registration of workers by December 31 this year or all their “welfare schemes” would be considered “tall claims on paper”.
•Justice Bhushan observed, “The Ministry is not alive to the concerns of the migrant workers. The non-action of the Ministry is strongly disapproved”.
•The court said an unorganised worker was entitled to direct bank transfer if there was a State policy.
•“Both, in the first and the second wave of the pandemic, migrant workers had been exposed to financial and other forms of hardships due to their limited access and claim to the welfare resources offered by the States/Union Territories. Migrant labourers are particularly vulnerable to the economic regression,” the court noted.
•It suggested that the Centre ought to “redetermine” the beneficiaries under the Food Security Act in both the urban and rural areas.
•The Bench directed the States/Union Territories to register establishments and license contractors under the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 and ensure that they provided the authorities complete details of the workers employed with them.
📰 Lanka ‘banking on’ $1 bn India swap deal
Assistance ‘crucial’ to help Colombo meet debt obligations: central bank official
•Sri Lanka is “banking on” a $1 billion currency swap from India to meet its debt repayment obligations this year and tide over the current economic crisis, a senior official of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka said.
•The island nation has already serviced part of its debt this year, and is preparing to repay the remaining more than $3 billion over the next six months, officials said. With an international sovereign bond maturing soon, a $1 billion repayment is due in July.
•“We are expecting a $400 million swap from the Reserve Bank of India in a couple of months through the SAARC facility,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the ongoing bilateral negotiations. “But the additional $1 billion is going to be crucial for us,” the official added.
•Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa had in May 2020 asked Prime Minister Narendra Modi for a “special” $1.1-billion currency swap to help the country boost its foreign reserves.
•“It has been more than a year... it is a decision that has to be taken by the political leadership in India, it is beyond the RBI,” the Sri Lankan central banker said.
•While official sources in New Delhi earlier indicated that negotiations on the issue were “ongoing”, the Indian government is yet to respond to both President Rajapaksa’s request, as well as Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa’s February 2020 request for a debt freeze, even as bilateral talks have continued at high levels.
•On June 21, Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena, held a telephone conversation with his counterpart S. Jaishankar, during which they agreed to co-operate on “common issues in the region”, Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement. The release made no mention of Colombo’s pending requests for economic assistance.
•Meanwhile, the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka on Tuesday said in a statement that the country was focussed on managing its debt service obligations this year. Sri Lanka’s gross official reserves currently stand at $4 billion, excluding the “standby” about $1.5 billion swap agreement with the People’s Bank of China.
•On inflows expected this year, Governor W. D. Lakshman said a $250 million swap from the Bangladesh Bank was expected in July and the $400 million SAARC facility from the RBI was expected in August.He said a “special swap facility of $1,000 million” was being negotiated with the bank’s Indian counterpart, in addition to about $800 million expected in August, under the IMF SDR (Special Drawing Rights) allocation.
•Sri Lanka’s total foreign debt was $32.2 billion as of March 2021. The country would meet all its external debt service obligations on time, maintaining the country’s “unblemished record”, Mr. Lakshman said in the statement.
📰 Government gives nod for Cipla to import Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine
DCGI grants emergency use approval for ready-to-use injectable jab
•The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), on Tuesday, granted permission to Mumbai-based pharmaceutical firm Cipla to import Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, making it the fourth vaccine in the country to be given the Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA).
•Announcing this at the Health Ministry press conference on Tuesday, NITI Aayog’s member (Health) V. K. Paul said the finer modalities are being worked out for the import of the vaccine and added that India is also in conversation with Pfizer and JJ to add to the basket of vaccines available in India.
•Currently India has made available three COVID vaccines — Covaxin, Covishield and Sputnik. Dr. Paul added that the Moderna vaccine will be brought in as a ready-to-use injectable vaccine which can be stored for a period of seven months at prescribed temperature and that normal storage after vial is opened is 30 days.
•“We are working to ensure that India is able to manufacture this vaccine here. We are also looking at increasing the production of vaccines that are being manufactured in our country to boost availability. The permission for restricted use in emergency situations has been granted for the Moderna vaccine keeping in mind the public interest. The firm has to submit a safety assessment of the vaccine in the first 100 beneficiaries before rolling out the vaccine for further immunisation programmes, according to the approval order. It, however, does not need any bridging study,” explained Dr. Paul.
•He added that an application was received from Moderna through their Indian partner Cipla following which the vaccine has been granted restricted emergency use authorisation by the drug regulator.
•“This new permission for restricted emergency use potentially opens up a clear possibility of this vaccine being imported to India in the near future,” explained Dr. Paul.
•Cipla while applying for the license referred to DCGI notices dated 15 April and 1 June, which noted that if a vaccine is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) for EUA, then it may be made available without a post-approval bridging trial and the testing of every batch of the vaccine by Central Drugs Laboratory.
•According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Moderna vaccine has shown to have an efficacy of approximately 94.1% in protecting against COVID-19, starting 14 days after the first dose. The WHO adds that based on evidence collected so far, the new variants of SARS-CoV-2, do not alter the effectiveness of the Moderna mRNA vaccine.
•Meanwhile, responding to a question about the spread of the Delta Plus variant in India, Dr. Paul said 51 cases of Delta Plus variant have been reported from 11 States and one Union Territory — MP, Maharashtra, Punjab, Gujarat, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Odisha, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Haryana and Jammu (as of June 28).
📰 Chamoli disaster due to avalanche, says Geological Survey of India
Large mass of snow, ice and rock avalanche along with a hanging mass of rock crashed into the Raunthi Garh valley floor, the GSI says in a report.
•The flash flood on February 7 in Chamoli district, Uttarakhand, that claimed at least 72 lives and caused at least 200 to be missing or dead was due to large mass of snow, ice and rock avalanche along with a hanging mass of rock crashing into the Raunthi Garh valley floor.
•This impact pulverised the combination of rock, snow and ice causing a rapid flow downstream of Raunthi Garh and into the Rishiganga valley leading to the deluge, the Geological Survey of India (GSI) said in a report on Tuesday.
•The deluge had destroyed the 13.2 MW Rishiganga power plant and damaged the 520 MW Tapovan-Vishnugadh hydel power project, in whose tunnels several workers had been fatally trapped.
•The event had sparked global scientific interest with several groups of scientists, both in India and abroad, perusing satellite imagery as well as some teams making field visits to the site to determine the cause of the disaster. A report in the journal Science earlier this month too came to a similar conclusion, reporting that nearly 27 million cubic metre of rock and ice had crashed into the valley floor.
Warm weather
•A contributory factor, according to Saibal Ghosh, senior scientist at the GSI, was unusually warm weather in the region. “Observed change in the hydro-meteorological conditions between 4th and 6th February, 2021 (heavy snowfall followed by sudden warmer climate) possibly triggered this huge snow and rock avalanche/landslide causing sudden domino effect of flash flood in the downstream.”
•Satya Prakash Shukla, Deputy Director General, International Affairs Division, GSI Central Headquarters and who led the team of geologists investigating the disaster site said, “Lessons have also been learnt from this event of 7th February 2021 which is an excellent example of multi-hazard phenomena that occurred during the winter time, when this type of phenomenon leading to such disastrous deluge is least expected in the Himalayas.”
•There was no evidence of a Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF) having caused the event, he noted.
•Due to the large volume of debris and the deluge, an artificial dam had formed near the confluence of Raunthi Garh and Rishiganga River, by the flowing debris which blocked the flow of Rishiganga River and formed a small lake temporarily.
•A study by National Remote Sensing Centre indicated that the time taken from the initiation of the avalanche and its disastrous impact up to Tapovan barrage site near Joshimath was “barely 50 minutes”, which indicates availability of a “very low lead time for raising any warning for the downstream areas.”
•Climate change, that was triggering higher temperatures in the upper reaches of the Himalaya had a role and the constant freezing and thawing of ice made parts of rocks weak making them vulnerable to collapse. “Areas having risks posed by smaller mountain glaciers were also becoming important sites where such hazards formed. The steep higher order streams and the narrow river valleys in the high-altitude areas of Himalayas remain extremely hazard prone, which are not only vulnerable to GLOF/Landslide Lake Outburst Flood (LLOF) hazards but have also become locale for a major disaster caused due to the domino effect of large/mega landslide and avalanche,” the GSI report noted.
📰 Coming soon: On new censor law
New layers of censorship are a threat to the existing space for public discourse
•Film-makers around the world have often made extraordinary efforts to keep cinema alive. Under a repressive regime in Iran, directors such as Abbas Kiarostami, Mohsen Makhmalbaf and Majid Majidi fought for art as a basic social need with films like Where Is the Friend’s Home?, The Cyclist and Children of Heaven. In India, during the Emergency when the government apparatus came down heavily on any criticism, the prints of Amrit Nahata’s political satire Kissa Kursi Ka, filmed in 1975, were destroyed. Even though a revised version was released in 1978, it invited several cuts from the Central Board of Film Certification. For the past few years, the CBFC has objected to the content of several films, ordering cuts. Now, a proposed amendment to the Cinematograph Act, 1952, will make it even more difficult for film-makers to work on thorny or controversial subjects. The draft Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill 2021, which has been put out for public comments, has a provision that allows the Government to order re-certification of a film already certified by the CBFC. Film-makers argue that the new provision adds one more layer of censorship to the existing process. Already in April, the Government took the ordinance route to scrap the Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), a statutory body set up to hear appeals of film-makers against decisions of the CBFC.
•In 2000, the Supreme Court had upheld the verdict of the Karnataka High Court in the K.M. Shankarappa vs Union of India case that the Union government cannot exercise revisional powers in respect of films that are already certified by the CBFC. The draft acknowledges the existing apex court order but has added a new clause: “…that on receipt of any references by the Central government in respect of a film certified for public exhibition, on account of violation of Section 5B(1) of the Act, the Central government may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct the chairman of the board to re-examine the film”. The provision of Section 5B(1) of the Act, the draft says, is derived from Article 19(2) of the Constitution “which imposes reasonable restrictions upon the freedom of speech and expression in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India…” New restrictive laws have come into place for over-the-top (OTT) platforms as well. Giving the Government powers to vet content not only curbs freedom of expression but also quells democratic dissent. Fresh barriers to content generation are a threat to the existing space for public discourse and are indicative of the current pressures on freedoms from authoritarian tendencies of the ruling establishment.
📰 Apt judicial reminder in era of over-criminalisation
The criminal justice system needs to take note of the Delhi High Court’s recent judgment on ‘defining terrorism’
•The criminal justice system is an instrument of state and a key index of the state of democracy. Every punishment which does not arise from absolute necessity is tyrannical, said French jurist Montesquieu. In fact criminal law should be used only as a ‘last resort’ (ultima ratio) and only for the ‘most reprehensible wrongs’. Unfortunately, ‘crimes’ originate in government policy and, therefore, criminal law reflects the idea of ‘power’ rather than ‘justice’. Should civil society activists, students, intellectuals and protesters be charged for the crime of terrorism? Is every criminal a terrorist and every violent crime a terrorist activity? Did Parliament in enacting the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, (TADA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) intend to punish ordinary criminals under these anti-terror special laws?
Example of misuse
•In the period 2015-2019, as many as 7,840 persons were arrested under the draconian UAPA but only 155 were convicted by the trial courts. Most would eventually be acquitted by the higher courts. Even Congress governments misused TADA (enacted in 1985 and amended in 1987). Till 1994, though 67,000 people were detained, just 725 were convicted in spite of confessions made to police officers being made admissible. In Kartar Singh (1994), the Supreme Court of India had observed that in many cases, the prosecution had unjustifiably invoked provisions of TADA ‘with an oblique motive of depriving the accused persons from getting bail’. It added that such an invocation of TADA was ‘nothing but the sheer misuse and abuse of the Act by the police’.
•UAPA’s experience has been worse than TADA. UAPA has also been equally used and abused. The recent 133 page bail order of the Delhi High Court in Asif Iqbal Tanha (June 15, 2021), that led to the release of three student activists, has come as a bolt from the blue for the Delhi police. At the heart of the controversy is the meaning of the term ‘terrorism’ and when UAPA can justifiably be invoked.
No consensus on definition
•Though there are more than 100 definitions of terrorism available globally, there is no universal definition of the term ‘terrorism’ either in India or at the international level. The UN General Assembly had given this task to a committee, but in almost 50 years or so there has been no consensus on the meaning of terrorism. The fight against foreign occupation is to be kept out of terrorism as today’s terrorist may be tomorrow’s freedom fighter. Accordingly, neither TADA nor UAPA has a definition of the crucial terms ‘terror’ and ‘terrorism’. Section 15 of UAPA merely defines a terrorist act in extremely wide and vague words: ‘as any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people....’
•How is such a terrorist act committed? UAPA says ‘by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisonous or noxious gases ... or by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause death or injuries...,’ What is the meaning of the expression ‘by any other means’? When a general word is used in any statute after specific words, it is to be interpreted in the context of specific words. Thus, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) protests cannot be covered by this expression.
•In Yaqoob Abdul Razzak Memon (2013), the Supreme Court said that terrorist acts can range from threats to actual assassinations, kidnappings, airline hijacking, car bombs, explosions, mailing of dangerous materials, use of chemical, biological, nuclear weapons etc. Since the three student activists did not do any of these things, Justices Anup Jairam Bhambhani and Siddharth Mridul could not be convinced of their involvement in any terrorist act. Through an authoritative and enlightened bail order entirely based on the apex court judgments, Justice Bhambani reminded the Delhi police of the true meaning of a terrorist act.
Other judgments
•In Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (1994), the Supreme Court had defined terrorism as the ‘use of violence when its most important result is not merely the physical and mental damage of the victim but the prolonged psychological effect it produces ... on the society as a whole’. Its main objective is to overawe the government or disturb the harmony of society or ‘terrorise’ people...’. Thus, what ‘distinguishes ‘terrorism’ from other forms of violence is the deliberate and systematic use of coercive intimidation’. In Kartar Singh (1994), the Supreme Court held that a mere disturbance of public order that disturbs even the tempo of the life of community of any particular locality is not a terrorist act. By this interpretation, the CAA protests in a few localities of Delhi cannot be termed as terrorist activity. Even in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, the Supreme Court, in Nalini and 25 Others (1999) held that none of the accused had intent to overawe the government or strike terror among people, and therefore the killing of Rajiv Gandhi and 15 others was not held to be a terrorist act or disruptive activity under Section 3 of TADA.
•In Ram Manohar Lohia (1966), the apex court explained the distinction between ‘law and order’, ‘public order’ and ‘security of state’. Law and order represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing ‘public order’, and the smallest circle represents the ‘security of state’. Accordingly, an act may affect ‘law and order’ but not ‘public order’. Similarly, an act may adversely affect ‘public order’ but not the ‘security of state.’ In most UAPA cases, the police have failed to understand these distinctions and unnecessarily clamped UAPA charges for simple violations of law and order.
•In the historic PUCL judgment (2003) where the constitutionality of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) was under challenge, the Supreme Court had highlighted another vital dimension of terrorist act by including within its meaning amongst other things the ‘razing of constitutional principles that we hold dear’, ‘tearing apart of the secular fabric’ and ‘promotion of prejudice and bigotry’.
•Justice Bhambhani reiterated the first principle of criminal law, i.e., criminal provisions are to be given the narrowest possible meaning. It is a sad commentary on our criminal justice system that even the mention of this rule of thumb is being considered as a breeze of fresh air in an atmosphere of curtailment of liberties and democracy tilting towards authoritarianism.
•Relying on A.K. Roy (1982) where the constitutionality of the National Security Act (NSA) was challenged, Justice Bhambhani concluded that to ensure that a person who was not within the parliamentary intendment does not get roped into a penal provision, more stringent a penal provision, it must be more strictly construed. The apex court itself had held that while construing preventive detention laws such as the NSA, care must be taken to restrict their application to as few situations as possible. In Sanjay Dutt (1994) as well, the Supreme Court had held that those whom the law did not intend to punish are not to be roped in by stretching the penal provisions. In recent times, the Allahabad High Court had to quash 94 of 120 cases in which NSA has been invoked.
•Accordingly, the Delhi High Court concluded that since the definition of a ‘terrorist act’ in UAPA is wide and somewhat vague, it cannot be casually applied to ordinary conventional crimes, and the act of the accused must reflect the essential character of terrorism. Indeed, the CAA protests were not terrorist acts. Defining terrorism may be difficult but does not everyone know when an act of terror is really committed?
What must be done
•One hopes that, henceforth, our police will be far more cautious in charging people under black laws such as UAPA, the NSA, etc. In any case, no anti-terror law, howsoever stringent, can really end the problem of terrorism. Pushing a civilised state to state terrorism is the tried and tested strategy of all terrorists. Let us not fall in their trap.
•Radicalisation generally succeeds only with those who have been subjected to real or perceived injustices. Let us remove injustice to combat terrorism. The creation of a truly just, egalitarian and non-oppressive society would be far more effective in combating terrorism.
📰 Méndez’s anti-torture vision is still distant for India
The belief in the utility of torture is embedded in institutional culture and accommodated by law
•In a past interview, Juan E. Méndez, former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, recounts his fears while being tortured for “intelligence” by security forces of the military junta in 1970s Argentina: “I was very scared during the interrogations. Twice they had to call a doctor to check if they could continue torturing me without killing me. Only then did I realize that I could die. But when you are in that situation you live minute by minute, thinking of the moment when the torturers will get tired and stop so you can have a break”.
•Mr. Méndez reminds us of the palpable fear created in the exercise of torture. Decades on, instilling fear through torture — physical or psychological — to reach the “truth”, is still seen as an effective interrogation “technique” by security forces. The reality that torture persists suggests that belief in its utility overrides the moral arguments and legal prohibitions against it.
Torture does not work
•A latest effort to combat torture during investigation, spearheaded by Mr. Méndez, reinforces empirical evidence that torture does not work. Launched in June 2020, the ‘Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering’, dubbed the ‘Méndez Principles’, were developed through a comprehensive, expert-driven consultative process.
•The Méndez Principles aim to provide a cohesive blueprint of practical measures to replace torture and coercive interrogation with “rapport-based” interviews, reinforced through legal and procedural safeguards at every step. They offer practical guidance for non-coercive interrogations; address heightened vulnerabilities in custody; and provide specific guidance on training, accountability and implementation. They are to apply to all authorities who have the power to detain and question people, including the police, military, and intelligence. At their core, the Principles seek to prevent coercive techniques and torture by introducing a paradigm shift away from “confession” based information gathering.
•Crucially, they are grounded in scientific empirical studies across disciplines — psychology, criminology, sociology, neuroscience — which establish that coercive interrogation is counterproductive. Extreme torture tactics, such as forced stress positions or waterboarding, have been shown to significantly damage the affected person’s memory and recollection of information. Aggressive questioning is more likely to make the interviewee resistant, or ‘say anything’ just for the threat of violence to stop. Coercive interviewing leads to unreliable information and false confessions. These studies provide scientific evidence to reject the widely-held misconception that a certain degree of ‘pressure’, or physical pain, will yield accurate information.
Its persistence in India
•With their emergence as a new set of aspirational standards, it is tempting to assess whether the Méndez Principles can readily apply to the Indian context. Unfortunately, enough evidence indicates that the Indian context typifies the belief in the utility of torture, and is embedded in institutional culture and accommodated by law.
•In spite of the prohibition of and safeguards against “third degree methods”, they are normalised in police practice. Even the National Human Rights Commission has said that “custodial violence and torture is so rampant in this country that it has become almost routine”.
•The belief that a certain degree of fear and pressure is necessary to compel a suspect to cough up the “truth” is widely held by police officers. This emerged strongly in a 2019 survey of about 12,000 police personnel across India, published by Common Cause and Lokniti. Three out of four personnel felt that it is justified for the police to be violent towards “criminals”, and four out of five personnel responded that there is nothing wrong in the police beating criminals to extract confessions. Scholars, Khanikar and Jauregui, studying the police in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, reveal practices of using tools such as wooden sticks in interrogation, signalling the presence of tools to beat or intimidate, while perversely labelling them with suggestive phrases like “aan milo saajna” (“come to me, my beloved”). Coercion and the resort to violence are common in both the choice of tools and approach to interrogation. There would need to be a fundamental shift in police thinking before the goal set by the Méndez Principles of moving from coercive practices to “rapport-based interrogation” can be realised.
•Structural constraints fuel the persistence of torture, since it is seen to be effective. Investigating officers are in short supply, and have little scope to develop specialisation in investigative work. Working under perceived or actual constraints, of inadequate resources, political pressure, and an overburdened legal system, officers conjure the image of a vigilante cop compelled to take matters into their own hands. Popular films, and political and public support to illegal police killings as in the Hyderabad ‘Disha’ case (November-December 2019), further legitimise the vigilante cop as the only ‘hope’ for serving justice.
Tacit acceptance by law
•Additionally, Indian law creates conditions which further permit torture through the “back door”. While confessions before a police officer are not admissible evidence, to prevent the police from resorting to torture, other legal provisions have the effect of indirectly accommodating the use of torture in investigative practice. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act permits the admissibility of statements before the police to the extent that they relate to the recovery of material objects, often called ‘recovery evidence’. Thus, investigators still have incentive to seek “disclosures”, and information implicit in a confession, as central to their investigation. Torture and falsification, by forcing an accused to sign on blank papers, are known abuses in the use of this provision. In an opinion study of former Supreme Court judges published in 2018, 12 out of 58 judges acknowledged the heightened risk of torture as the shortcut method to obtain recovery evidence. Yet, Indian law still does not bar tainted evi
dence obtained through torture or coercive methods as inadmissible. It is up to individual judges to decide whether to rely on it or not.
•The introduction of so-called scientific techniques of interrogation, such as lie detectors and narco-analysis, are often presented as the solutions to end physical torture. Jinee Lokaneeta’s analysis in The Truth Machines (2020) reveals that introduction of these techniques, without addressing the existing conditions which perpetuate torture, has resulted in psychological forms of torture, supplementing coercive interrogation strategies. While the scientific validity of these techniques in determining the “truth” is held suspect, Indian law allows evidence voluntarily given by an accused through these techniques to be used as corroborative evidence. What can be voluntary in police custody without the protective cover of enforced safeguards?
•In all of these ways, Indian law remains ambivalent and fails to fully prevent torture and coercion from creeping in. Structural constraints, popular culture, and political approval have shaped policing institutional cultures to valorise violence and coercion. Without urgent introspection, Méndez’s anti-torture vision will remain distant for India.
📰 The trouble with rankings
A university should be judged within its social perspective
•A culture of ranking is dominating today’s world. University rankings such as Times Higher Education and Quacquarelli Symonds create a huge uproar. But should they really deserve to be the yardstick of excellence in today’s higher education?
The concept of a university
•There has been a paradigm shift in the concept of a university in the modern era from the ancient times when universities like Nalanda and Taxila existed. In his 1852 book, The Idea of a University, John Henry Newman assumed that knowledge should be pursued “for its own sake”. Newman used the ancient designation of a Studium Generale, or “School of Universal Learning”. “A University seems to be in its essence, a place for the communication and circulation of thought, by means of personal intercourse, through a wide extent of country,” Newman wrote.
•The idea of the university, however, was shaped through the reforms of Wilhelm von Humboldt in Prussia. Ever since the University of Berlin was founded in 1810, the ‘Humboldtian’ university became a model for Europe, and subsequently for the research universities of the U.S. The central Humboldtian principle was the fusion of teaching and research in the work of the individual scholar, and the objective of the university was to advance knowledge by original and critical investigation, not just to transmit the legacy of the past or to teach skills.
•In India, the Universities of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras were established in 1857. The immediate interest was to produce graduates to fill up the salaried positions emerging in the wake of colonial rule. The mottos of these universities, however, were “Advancement of Learning”, “Śīlastataphalā Vidyā” (The Fruit of Learning is Character and Righteous Conduct), and “Doctrina Vim Promovet Insitam” (Learning Promotes Natural Talent), respectively. In 1919, Rabindranath Tagore wrote: “the primary function of our University should be the constructive work of knowledge”.
•While the concept of a university has evolved a lot, blaming the contemporary universities from Newman’s standpoint would be like blaming a jet engine for not having the excellences of a windmill, as the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre said.
•Back to ranking. In fact, weighted averages of scores for several performance-related criteria are considered for ranking of the universities. The criteria and their weights differ from one ranking organisation to another. Change in weights may produce a different list of rankings. The criteria constitute research income from industry; ratio of international to domestic staff and students; number of students, research papers, citations; etc. Small but important institutes might thus trail in the ranking race. Also, many people think ‘citation’ is an inappropriate measure of usefulness of a research paper.
•The most controversial part of the ranking methodology maybe reputational survey or academic peer review, where opinions of academics get importance. This component has significant weight, and these rankings have come in for criticism for too much emphasis on perception. Last year, seven leading IITs announced that they would boycott one such ranking, saying they are not satisfied with the transparency of the process.
Churning out papers
•Research publication is important to enhance the rank. Academics are expected to keep churning out papers. An institute invariably seeks a list of recent publications once or twice a year from its faculty members. But how does that help in quality research? Peter Higgs, the 2013 Nobel Laureate in Physics, believes that he would not have got a job in today’s academic system because he would not be considered “productive” enough. When his department at Edinburgh University would ask for a list of recent publications, Higgs would reply: “None”. Still, today’s academics are mostly confined within the world of such ‘compulsory’ research and publication, for mere survival.
•The concept of a university should not be the same everywhere. Universities at Chicago, Harvard and Oxford might fancy making the achievements of their students or professors the yardstick of excellence. However, there are many universities which cater to the local people as the only spectacles of higher education and prism of enlightenment. Their importance is no less than the ‘elite’ universities. A university should be judged within its social perspective.
•The worth of university rankings, thus, is not very clear. “When we see a foreign University, we see only its smaller body – its buildings, its furniture, its regulations, its syllabus; its larger body is not present to us. But as the kernel of the coconut is in the whole coconut, so the University,” Tagore envisaged a century ago. We might need to redefine the idea of a university within the framework of an ever-changing social perspective and need.
📰 A vague and wanting statement
The G7 failed to take a firm stance on the prevention of future pandemics
•Recently, the Group of Seven or G7 met in Cornwall, England. The leaders discussed a number of issues, but failed to take a firm stance on the prevention of future pandemics.
Pandemics of the future
•COVID-19 is not the last pandemic we are going to see. Given the closer proximity between humans and animals due to deforestation, displacement of humans, population growth, and the search for wild food, pathogens can easily be transmitted from animals to humans (zoonotic spillover). A report by the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (IPPPR) notes that most of the new pathogens’ origins are zoonotic.
•Further, climate change is allowing the permafrost found in Arctic regions to melt and is reviving pathogens and organisms that were either once thought to be long gone or remain unknown. Recently, bdelloid rotifers, a microscopic creature that was slumbering for at least 24,000 years, was unearthed from the permafrost, which is melting in places due to climate change. Revich and Podolnaya (2011) conclude that vectors of deadly infections of the 18th and 19th centuries may make a comeback due to the same reason.
•Given that we are still in the midst of a raging pandemic, what was the G7’s response to all this? The Carbis Bay Health Declaration of the G7 fails to take any concrete stance on many (or arguably, any) issues. The G7 merely “acknowledge the bold recommendations of the [IPPPR] and the other review committees” and state that they will “continue to work” with other countries, the G20, the World Health Organization (WHO), and other organisations.
•The Declaration takes “note” of the IPPPR’s recommendation for a potential treaty under the framework of the WHO, suggesting a failure to reach a concrete agreement. Over 25 leaders from other regions have already supported the idea of a new treaty. Such a treaty is needed to plug holes in the current system and strengthen national capacities and resilience. COVID-19 has taught us that a pandemic anywhere is a pandemic everywhere. If the capacities of developing countries are not strengthened, another virus could spread around the world. Without giving any material support, G7 offers vague commitments to “strive for fairness, inclusion and equity” and “support vulnerable countries”.
Need for a holistic approach
•The world needs to adopt a holistic approach for the prevention of future pandemics. Dr. Jorge E. Viñuales et al., in their article in The Lancet, argue that the need is to focus on “deep prevention”. They draw a distinction between upstream, midstream, and downstream stages of intervention. Downstream intervention refers to steps taken on the public health front (for example, prevention of disease spread). ‘Deep prevention’ focuses on upstream and midstream intervention. In the former, one would focus on the ‘One Health’ approach, which acknowledges the interconnection between humans, animals, plants, and the shared ecosystem. This approach can be given varying levels of intrusiveness. Towards the extreme end, it might involve banning wet markets, such as the one suspected to be the origin of COVID-19. China banned such markets in 2003 after the SARS outbreak; however, incentives to keep the industry open eroded the ban eventually. Although the Declaration seems to support ‘One Health’, it dilutes it to encouraging coordination efforts between the UN, WHO, World Organisation for Animal Health, and others.
•Viñuales et al. suggest that the midstream intervention would involve setting up a science and policy panel such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Such a panel could ensure that science informs the law, pre-emptively detect pathogens of concern, and identify potential hotspots for an outbreak and set up a mechanism for regular inspection by the national authority and appropriate international oversight, among other things.
