📰 Oil palm plan for northeast, Andamans a recipe for disaster, say activists
Environmental experts and politicians raise concern over Centre’s proposal.
•Given the widespread destruction of rainforests and native biodiversity caused by oil palm plantations in Southeast Asia, environmental experts and politicians are warning that the Centre’s move to promote their cultivation in India’s northeastern States and in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands could be disastrous.
•Other concerns include the impact on community ownership of tribal lands, as well as the fact that the oil palm is a water-guzzling, monoculture crop with a long gestation period unsuitable for small farmers. However, the government says land productivity for palm oil is higher than for oilseeds, with the Agriculture Minister giving an assurance that the land identified for oil palm plantations in northeastern States is already cleared for cultivation.
•In a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi last week, soon after the launch of the ₹11,040 crore National Mission on Edible Oil-Oil Palm (NMEO-OP), Meghalaya MP Agatha Sangma warned that the focus areas were “biodiversity hotspots and ecologically fragile” and oil palm plantations would denude forest cover and destroy the habitat of endangered wildlife. It could also detach tribespeople from their identity linked with the community ownership of land and “wreak havoc on the social fabric”, said the National People’s Party.
•Congress leader and former Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said proposals for large-scale oil palm cultivation had been studied and rejected as part of the technology mission on edible oils in the late 1980s as it was a “recipe for ecological disaster”. He alleged that “the present proposal of course is designed to benefit Patanjali and Adani”, both corporates with interests in edible oil expansion.
•“The palm is an invasive species. It’s not a natural forest product of northeastern India and its impact on our biodiversity as well as on soil conditions has to be analysed even if it is grown in non-forest areas. Any kind of monoculture plantation is not desirable,” said Bibhab Talukdar, a biologist who heads the Guwahati-based conservation organisation Aaranyak, advising caution in introducing oil palm.
•The Central government insists it is already proceeding on the basis of cautious scientific analysis. A study done by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research recommended 28 lakh hectares across the country where oil palm can be cultivated, out of which only 9 lakh hectares are in the northeastern States, said Agriculture Minister Narendra Singh Tomar.
•“This 9 lakh hectares is not being given by cutting forests or other crops. This is land available for cultivation. The other reason is that besides the availability of land and the suitability of climate, in the context of environment too, it will help bring balance,” he told journalists after the Cabinet approved the new Mission.
•“There is research going on to increase the production of oilseeds like mustard, groundnut, soyabean, sunflower, and there has been increasing growth in the production of these oilseeds, but if we have to fill huge gap in production versus demand [of edible oils] soon, we will have to venture into crops where production is more. The production of palm oil from one hectare is far greater than the production of mustard oil in the same area. So naturally, though we are promoting the production of other oilseed, the production rate of oilseeds cannot be compared to that of palm oil,” he said. Palm oil currently makes up a whopping 55% of India’s edible oil imports, and the new Mission is intended to move towards domestic production and self reliance instead.
•The Andaman and Nicobar Islands have already had some experience with oil palm, including some abandoned plantations on Katchal Island in the Nicobar chain, and a 1,593-hectare area on Little Andaman which was planted more than 35 years ago and abandoned on the instructions of the Supreme Court.
•According to a feasibility report prepared by the Indian Institute of Oil Palm Research (IIOPR) based on visits to the islands in late 2018, these can be revived and supplemented by plantations in the grasslands, which make up over 75% of the land area of Little Andaman, Katchal, Baratang, Kamorta and Teressa. “Existing grass in the islands is not of any use and is being burnt every year to avoid snakebites,” said the IIOPR’s feasibility report, which added that the soil and climatic conditions were suitable for oil palm plantation, with high rainfall doing away with the need for irrigation which could suck out groundwater. All five islands are home to tribal communities, including the Jarawa and Onge tribes. The IIOPR suggested that multi-cropping during the first three years of the oil palm’s life cycle would help provide income before the plantation yields returns from the fourth to seventh years.
•However, in a January 2019 letter to the Agriculture department, the Chief Conservator of Forests of the Union Territory pointed out that much of these lands are protected or reserve forests and any land use changes would require the approval of the Supreme Court, whose 2002 order had directed that existing plantations, whether of oil palm, rubber or teak, should be phased out. The land should be regenerated to its natural profile without any further introduction of exotic species, it said. In its feasibility report, IIOPR said the Chief Secretary of the islands gave an assurance that “A&N administration would take care of issues relating to Supreme Court Ban and other Committee Reports with the help of the Government of India”.
•Although it shares similarly suitable climatic conditions, Sri Lanka has recently disavowed oil palm, with a May announcement to raze existing plantations and ban palm oil imports as the crop has replaced more environmentally friendly and employment generating plantation crops, dried up local streams, and shows signs of becoming an invasive species threatening native plants and animals.
•In the parts of peninsular India which already grow oil palm, the response has been mixed. Industry stakeholders in Kerala, which has had widespread experience with plantation crops, are excited about growth prospects via the new Mission. Former Oil Palm India chairman Vijayan Kunissery told The Hindu that a number of rubber farmers are interested in switching to oil palm and expected a revival of the sector by 2022. The State government has identified potential sites for cultivation in Wayanad and Palakkad districts, apart from rejuvenation of existing gardens supported by the new Mission.
•In Andhra Pradesh, which currently grows more than 90% of India’s oil palm, farmers depended on bore well irrigation. G.V. Ramanjaneyulu, an agricultural scientist who heads the Hyderabad-based Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, pointed out that oil palm requires 300 litres of water per tree per day, as well as high pesticide use in areas where it is not a native crop, leading to consumer health concerns as well.
•The high levels of investment and the long wait for high returns tend to attract large corporate investors, while small cultivators have struggled with the long gestation period, and have required heavy government support. “If similar subsidies and support are extended to oilseeds which are indigenous to India and suited for dryland agriculture, they can help achieve self-reliance without dependence on oil palm,” said Dr. Ramanjaneyulu.
•He accused faulty trade policy for undercutting the gains in oilseed productivity which were driven by the technology mission of the late 1980s and early 90s. “When the government cut duties on edible oil imports, the Indian domestic market collapsed. Palm oil imports from Southeast Asia became cheaper than domestic oilseeds because of the subsidies provided in those countries,” he said. “We need to find the solutions that fit into our existing ecological and socio-economic situation,” he added.
Move to improve retail participation in process
•To make the National Monetisation Pipeline (NMP) a success, the government should give Income tax breaks to attract retail investors into instruments like Infrastructure Investment Trusts (InvITs), the NITI Aayog has recommended.
•The Centre’s think tank driving the NMP, estimated to raise almost ₹6 lakh crore for the exchequer over four years, has also called for bringing such Trusts under the ambit of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to provide greater comfort to investors.
•Bringing in policy and regulatory changes to scale up monetisation instruments like InvITs and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and expand their investor base have been identified as a critical element for the NMP. The government plans to use the InvITs and REITS route to monetise public assets like highways, gas pipelines, railway tracks and power transmission lines.
•“More tax-efficient and user-friendly mechanisms like allowing tax benefits in InvITs as eligible security to invest under Section 54EC of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, are important starting points for initiating retail participation in the instruments,” the Aayog has said in its blueprint, indicating that further taxation-related tweaks may be needed along the way.
•Section 54EC allows taxpayers to offset long-term capital gains from transactions in immovable properties through investments in bonds issued by some government-backed infrastructure firms.
•“Though this will entail a cost in the form of loss of revenue for exchequer, the long-term benefits may outweigh the cost as linking investments in specified bonds with the capital gains exemption had proved to be success in the past,” Amit Singhania, partner at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. told The Hindu, adding this will encourage retail investor participation in InvITs.
•While InvIT structures have been used in India since 2014, the Aayog has pointed out that such Trusts are not considered a 'legal person' and cannot be brought under IBC proceedings, deterring lenders from participating.
•“Since the trusts are not considered as ‘legal person’ under the extant regulations, the IBC regulations are not applicable for InvIT loans. Hence, the lenders do not have existing process for recourse to project assets,” the Aayog has noted in the NMP guidebook.
•“While the lenders are protected under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, the provision of recourse under IBC regulations will bring in added level of comfort for the investors,” it has opined.
•Aashit Shah, partner at law firm J Sagar Associates, said extending IBC provisions to InvITs would help lenders access a faster and more effective debt restructuring and resolution option. “However, infrastructure regulators and SEBI would need to work in tandem for a successful insolvency resolution of an InvIT which may involve a change in the sponsor, investment manager and/ or trustee or transfer of an infrastructure asset,” he said.
•Apart from InvITs’ inclusion under the IBC, other amendments may be needed to allay concerns that retail investors may have about the safety of their investments in such large underlying assets, said Abhishek Goenka, partner at Aeka Advisors.
•Mr Goenka also asserted that a separate section in the income tax law to provide capital gains tax relief for investments in eligible InvITs specifically holding NMP assets would be better than extending Section 54EC, which currently applies to bonds issued by the National Highway Authority of India, Rural Electrification Corporation, Power Finance Corporation and the Indian Railway Finance Corporation.
•“The government should provide a high threshold for such tax breaks given the urgent need to push retail participation in these formats,” Mr Goenka said.
•Under Indian law, a trust is not a separate legal entity and the assets of a trust vest in the trustee for the benefit of the trust beneficiaries. Any premature winding down or liquidation of a trust is usually subject to the provisions of the trust deed, and in case of regulated trusts, may also need consent of the regulator, Mr. Shah explained.
•“InvITs either acquire a project directly or acquire the shares of project company. In the latter case, recourse to the IBC will be available where the lending is to the project company,” he said, but this won’t apply when they undertake direct lending at the InvIT level for funding an acquisition, capital expenditure or promoter contribution.
•Simply put, InvITs are structured so as to give investors an opportunity to invest in infrastructure assets with predictable cash flows, while the asset owners can raise upfront resources against future revenue cash flows from those assets, which in turn can be deployed in new assets or used to repay debt.
📰 A fine line: On development and conservation
Infrastructure development and eco-conservation should go hand-in-hand
•The need for infrastructure development in the Himalayan region rubs up against the environmental and ecological challenges that they pose. The Uttarakhand government has for decades envisaged hydroelectric projects as the way forward to power the State, premised on the region’s undulating topography. However, the rising frequency of intense rains has been contributing to landslips, avalanches, and the loss of lives and property. All of this has a bearing on hydroelectric projects being situated in terrain prone to environmental shocks. In the aftermath of the devastating Kedarnath floods of 2013, the Supreme Court ordered a halt to hydroprojects in the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins pending a review on whether they exacerbated the damage. The last few years have seen considerable friction on this issue, especially because the future of hydroprojects is closely linked to the National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG) programme. For the health of the river, it must be allowed to flow unimpeded, and hydropower projects are an obstacle. A committee of experts recommended to the Court that almost all hydropower projects, cleared by the Government for construction, be scrapped. Proponents of six of these projects approached the Court on the grounds that they had obtained prior clearances and scrapping projects would entail significant losses. Since then, the Centre has been trying to walk a fine line between salvaging some of them while acknowledging, at least on paper, the environmental costs.
•There have been divisions even within various Central ministries: the Water Resources Ministry, which manages the NMCG, is opposed to hydropower projects while the Ministry of Power roots for them. Through the years, whenever a group of experts has recommended a cessation of infrastructure development, there is always another group of experts, usually affiliated to government institutions, that differ and recommend the opposite. The avalanche in Chamoli this February, that destroyed two power projects and killed at least 200, was only the latest reminder of the fraught risks that committees and their tussles inadequately account for. The Centre has been saying that it is not too keen on new hydropower projects and is only permitting those that are at least 50% complete to go ahead given the sunk costs. While such statements have been made in Parliament, they do not appear in the latest affidavit to the Court; so there are concerns on whether this is indeed a lasting policy commitment. Uttarakhand, like all other States, is not immune from the demands for reliable power and infrastructure from its people. Along with better dialogue, power companies and the Centre must inspire greater trust in the residents of the region: infrastructure development will have to necessarily account for the region’s constraints.
📰 Rape and insensitivity: On the narrative of violence against women
Women’s security must not be predicated on restrictions of their rights and freedoms
•The narrative of violence against women in India continues unhindered. On August 24, an MBA student was gangraped near Chamundi Hills in Mysuru, sending shock waves around the country. Four men and a juvenile have been arrested from Tiruppur in Tamil Nadu in connection with the rape. The men tried to rob the girl and her friend but on finding no valuables, they raped her and assaulted him. Earlier this month, a minor Dalit girl was raped, murdered and hurriedly cremated in Delhi while the parents were kept away. In July, two minor girls were raped in Goa. Despite stringent laws in place, especially after the 2012 Nirbhaya case in Delhi, a rape occurs every 16 minutes in India, according to the latest records available with the National Crime Records Bureau. To make matters worse, sexist, misogynist, survivor-blaming remarks and inept measures invariably follow a heinous crime against women. Girls are pulled up for wearing ripped jeans, and staying out late. Sections of society, in their warped thinking, often argue the survivor could have evaded the assailants by adhering to conservative norms: wearing traditional attire, skipping parties, returning home by sunset. Parents are blamed for not bringing up their girl children with ‘Indian values’. After the Mysuru rape, a similar pattern ensued. The Karnataka Home Minister, Araga Jnanendra, ‘joked’ about rape while accusing the Congress of ‘politicising’ it. He subsequently retracted his insensitive remarks after State Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai stepped in.
•Mysore University did a flip-flop too, first announcing that girls would not be allowed to step off the Manasagangotri campus after 6.30 p.m., and then withdrawing the missive. Activists cried foul because the action showed the intent to blame everything on the girl. To do right by women, courts too should play a role, but despite some soul-searching as in Aparna Bhat & Ors vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., where the Supreme Court admitted to the “entrenched paternalistic and misogynistic attitudes that are regrettably reflected at times in judicial orders and judgments,” other verdicts have fallen short. Recent rulings by the Chhattisgarh High Court and the Kerala High Court, reiterating that any sexual act by a man against his wife, even if it involved force, is not rape, may be correct in law, but served to highlight the lacuna in the penal code, which does not recognise marital rape. In June, the Supreme Court had to order police protection to a couple in a live-in relationship who were denied relief by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Women have come a long way, fighting for their rights against patriarchal mindsets and other social ills. Instead of curbing their freedom, society and the state must ensure protection of women both in public and private places.
📰 Seize this opportunity to institutionalise accountability
The discourse on an indemnity waiver for COVID-19 vaccines is a hidden moment for India to act
•The Drugs Controller General of India granted Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) to the COVID-19 vaccines manufactured by Moderna and by Johnson & Johnson, in end June and early August 2021, respectively. In addition, India has an opportunity to receive 5 crore to 10 crore doses of Pfizer-BioNTech’s mRNA-based vaccine, including through the COVAX mechanism co-led by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), Gavi and the World Health Organization, before the end of 2021.
What it covers
•Despite granting EUA for two vaccines and a third (that of Pfizer-BioNTech) being eligible for approval, uncertainty on supply and availability remains. One of the primary reasons for this is the Indian government’s indecision on requests for indemnity from these manufacturers. Indemnity translates to protection from legal proceedings and liabilities, against claims from people who may experience rare and serious Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI).
•COVID-19 vaccines are given EUA by the regulatory authorities after a thorough review of their safety and efficacy. However, even though vaccines meet safety parameters, as an immuno-biological substance, a vaccine can be associated with rare and serious AEFIs, some of which — such as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) and Myocarditis — are known. Other long-term impacts can only be known over a period of time.
•There is a need for increased and sustained vaccine supply in India. The country’s COVID-19 vaccination drive has been underperforming, and in the seven-and-a-half months since the drive was initiated, only 11% of the total population has been fully vaccinated, and 35.5% has received a single dose. A reason for this is the insufficient supply, which has consistently been less than the projected vaccine availability. The situation persists in spite of the certain regulatory modifications enacted by the Government to increase availability, including: fast track authorisation of COVID-19 vaccines approved by regulatory authorities in the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and Europe, and those included in the World Health Organization (WHO) emergency use listing; waiving off requirements for bridging trials; and doing away with mandatory batch testing for vaccines manufactured abroad. Though these steps have led to the EUA of two additional vaccines, there is a lack of clarity on the definitive timeline on their availability in India. A key bottleneck is demand from manufacturers to grant indemnity. The core argument of the manufacturers is that they have been granted indemnity in their country of origin and have supplied vaccines to other countries only when granted indemnity. Vaccines under COVAX programme, further have an effective waiver of indemnity, through a separate mechanism that has been established.
The existing provisions
•The idea of not granting indemnity is to hold vaccine manufacturers accountable. The manufacturers of the three vaccines currently being administered in India (Covishield, Covaxin, and Sputnik V) have not been granted indemnity. There seem to be two key thoughts that are delaying the Government’s decision on indemnity. First, the supply from these manufacturers is likely to be a very small proportion of total vaccine availability in the country. Second, it is likely that once foreign manufacturers are granted indemnity, manufacturers currently supplying vaccines might make similar demands citing the fair play rule.
•What do the existing rules and regulations suggest? The rules governing clinical trials in India specify that compensation must be granted in case of injury or death of a trial subject. However, though a similar compensation mechanism does not exist for AEFIs reported under the Government’s routine immunisation programme in the country or for any other vaccine-related injury; the legal responsibility for any vaccine-related injury, in the existing Indian regulations, lies with the manufacturers. Therefore, if manufacturers are granted indemnity for any COVID-19 vaccine, there has to be an alternative mechanism for people to make a legal claim for compensation. That essentially would mean the Government has to accept responsibility to provide compensation for any such proven injury or harm. Second, indemnity must not be construed as blanket protection for deliberate acts, fraud or instances of negligence. Third, if foreign vaccine manufacturers are granted indemnity, then manufacturers of the vaccines currently in use are likely to demand similar protections.
•Though at a broader level, the stand and unwillingness of these manufacturers to supply COVID-19 vaccines to any country unless granted indemnity is too rigid. However, beyond indemnity, India does have mechanisms in the current legal framework to ensure safety and legal remedy for any harm. First, the Drugs Controller General of India while granting registration certificates is empowered to take action against companies found to be in violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Second, any individual seeking compensation after experiencing AEFI may directly file petitions before consumer courts and the High Courts. Third, recent amendments to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 disallow individuals but permit the regulatory bodies to initiate class action suits (cases representing groups of people who have suffered from the same loss) based on individual complaints.
Opportunity in the crisis
•Requests for indemnity must be contextualised within the larger public interest. For citizens, as long as mechanisms to tackle and compensate for a potential harm are effective, it makes a marginal difference if they come from the Government or a manufacturer. Moreover, even in cases where manufacturers hold legal liability, the Government and regulators cannot wash their hands of their responsibility to protect public health.
•Therefore, India should examine safeguards instituted by countries which have granted indemnity to manufacturers, such as America’s Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) and similar schemes in the U.K., Canada, the European Union, and Singapore. The COVAX has underwritten the compensation burden to protect vaccine manufacturers and distributors.
•This discourse clearly needs a recalibration and provides the Indian government a valuable opportunity to institutionalise legal safeguards from vaccine injuries and possibly, at a larger level, improve overall patient and health-care safety in the country. Such institutional mechanisms need to be supplemented with dedicated funding from the Government. Such systems can then be applicable to any licensed vaccines in India.
•One of the characteristics of India’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been delaying decisions till a point of crisis has emerged. Situations such as the novel coronavirus pandemic demand proactive and decisive problem-solving instead of burying our heads in the sand, hoping the problem will disappear. However, the debate on indemnity has far-reaching consequences. It must be seen as an opportunity far beyond the quantum of vaccines, to review legal provisions and create long-term mechanisms for protection from vaccine harm and making health services safer and accountable. It is a high time that a decision on granting (or not) indemnity to COVID-19 vaccines manufacturers is taken, before the situation morphs into another crisis and then a decision is rushed. The approach has to be to safeguard the interest of the citizen and convert this as an opportunity to reduce vaccine ‘licensing to availability gap’, increase vaccine availability, and establish institutional mechanisms.
📰 Towards a more humane police force
Efforts are on to improve the human rights protection regime in police stations
•Earlier this month, Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana expressed concern at the degree of human rights violations in police stations in the country. He said that “the threat to human rights and bodily integrity is the highest in police stations”. He also said that “in spite of constitutional declarations and guarantees, lack of effective legal representation at the police stations is a huge detriment to detained persons”. However, a reality check shows that the picture is not so bleak and efforts are being made to improve the human rights protection regime in police stations.
Deaths in police custody
•Deaths in police custody are indeed a matter of grave concern. Each such death must be seriously inquired into, to unravel the truth. National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data reveal that though the number of custodial deaths varies year to year, on average of about 100 custodial deaths have taken place every year between 2010 and 2019. Of them, about 3.5 persons allegedly died due to injuries caused by policemen, 8.6 while escaping from custody, 28.1 due to suicide, and the rest due to various reasons like illness and injuries caused in road accidents. A judicial inquiry, which is mandatory for every suspicious custodial death, was conducted in 26.4 cases. Though every death in custody needs to be prevented, suspicious deaths which bring disrepute to the police system must be rooted out completely.
•The foremost measure to reduce instances of custodial violence is to reduce the number of arrests. The law on arrest says that arrest for offences punishable up to seven years of imprisonment should be made only when the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent the person from tampering with evidence, to prevent the person from committing any further offence, etc. The Supreme Court held that each arrest must be necessary and justified; having the authority to arrest is alone not sufficient. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), it was held that despite the offence being non-bailable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which relates to torture for dowry, arrest is not mandatory as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). In Special Action Forum v. Union of India (2018), the Court further held that the police officer shall furnish to the magistrate the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest for further detention of the accused. The purpose of these checks is to ensure that the police does not abuse the power of arrest.
•NCRB data show that the ratio of the number of arrests to the number of IPC offences has decreased from 1.33 in 2010 to 0.96 in 2019 and despite an increase in total IPC offences, the actual number of arrests has reduced by more than five lakh in the last five years. Though the arrests in the previous years’ cases may increase to some extent, it is hoped that violence in custody will be checked if the amended law is implemented in letter and spirit.
•The National Police Commission (1977-81), the Law Commission in its 154th report (1996) and the Malimath Committee Report (2003), among others, and the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), have recommended that the investigating police should be separated from the law-and-order police to ensure better expertise in investigation. It was suggested that the separation start in towns which have more than 10 lakh population. It is believed that a separate wing will do more professional investigation and will not use unwarranted methods to extract confession from the accused. The Central Bureau of Investigation and the National Investigation Agency have already earned the reputation of the country’s premier investigation agencies. Though efforts have been made by some States in this direction, more resources are required in policing to implement the Court’s directions.
•One of the alleged reasons for using extreme methods is to extract a quick confession from the suspect. Though the total police force has increased in the last five years, the civil police mostly remains over-stretched. Therefore, unless investigating officers are increased in proportion to the number of serious offences, the quality of investigation may suffer, and the Malimath Committee’s recommendation that an investigating officer should preferably investigate no more than 10 cases every year will continue to remain a dream. Similarly, with the increase of newer types of crime like white collar crime and cybercrime, subject experts are needed to assist the police in the investigation.
•It cannot be denied that much has changed in the police consequent to the judgment in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1996). In that case, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to check custodial torture and increase transparency and responsibility of the police officer effecting arrest. Most of these guidelines such as providing information to a friend or relative about the arrest, medical examination, and permission to meet a lawyer have now been incorporated in the CrPC. Investigating officers mostly comply with them.
•Further, in order to check the violation of human rights, CCTV cameras have been installed in police stations. In Paramvir Singh v. Baljit Singh (2020), the Supreme Court has directed States to cover more area of each police station under CCTV cameras and have storage facility of audio-video recording for 18 months. An independent committee shall study the footage and periodically publish reports of its observations. Thus, sufficient steps are being taken to ensure that the abuse of human rights is minimised.
•Custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the rule of law. The guilty, therefore, must be punished severely for his misconduct and criminal act. NCRB data show that on average about 47.2 criminal cases were registered annually against policemen in last 10 years. Departmental action against errant officers is a rule in the police force, rather than an exception. The National Human Rights Commission also oversees deaths in custody due to human rights violations and recommends compensation in appropriate cases.
Protecting human rights
•The police officers must know that their mandate is to protect human rights and not violate them. They need to be sensitised regularly and encouraged to employ scientific tools of interrogation and investigation like the lie detection test, narco test and brainfingerprinting test.
•The Home Ministry has recently linked the ‘police modernisation scheme’ with police reforms. Unless sufficient action is taken by the State governments and the police authorities, incentives in the form of additional funds will not be released.
•The CJI’s suggestion to install display boards on human rights to disseminate information about the constitutional right to legal aid and availability of free legal aid services may deter police excesses. Our commitment to the protection of human rights is unconditional and total. Many steps have been taken so far to check custodial violence and no stone shall be left unturned to eliminate such violence in toto.
📰 The purpose of literature
It is through inclusive and diverse writings that we get a socio-cultural understanding of a nation
•Delhi University recently dropped Mahasweta Devi’s renowned short story, Draupadi, and two Dalit writers — Bama and Sukirtharani — from the BA English (Hons) syllabus. Several writers, academics and media outlets have reacted adversely to this news. Devi’s short story details the plight of tribals and remains relevant to this day. Bama’s Karukku will forever be remembered for its searing account of her life of subjugation and perennial ostracism. Sukirtharani’s poems lay bare her Dalit feminist politics. These are important voices that any student of literature or the Humanities ought to engage with in contemporary India. And it is often through university syllabi that young minds are introduced to such writing which may not feature in the usual bestseller lists or other traps laid out by corporate publishing intended to endear readers to certain types of books – lifestyle, self-help and ‘how to do’ guides – which don’t encourage critical questioning and thinking.
An introduction to who we are
•At this point, we must ask: what is the purpose of literature in a classroom really? Literary studies have moved far beyond merely imparting tools of literary analysis to students in the classroom. Studying literature no longer means analysing plot, character and setting, and writing long prosaic answers in exams alone. These are important elements to understand a text in its entirety but literature is also an introduction to where and how we live and the challenges that face our time and society. In many ways, literature is an introduction to who we are, or ought to be, as people. All over the world, literature syllabi are being redrawn to ensure inclusion and diversity.
•The writings of the authors who have been dropped from the course could be subjected to traditional literary analysis. At the same time, they also identify and highlight concerns that aid a socio-cultural understanding of the issues that plague Indian society. These texts, however, are not to be read as sociology camouflaging as literature. We must discuss their artistic and literary merits too. I have encountered several realities of this nation through these writings with little or no experience of the terrain the writers have written about or the caste atrocities they have faced. Their writing has been a great education to say the least. At the same time, history is archived in the life story of the individual and other characters in their fiction. The decision-makers at Delhi University could argue that all syllabi should be regularly updated. While that cannot be contested, the texts that replace the above writers should invite further scrutiny. Also, it should be asked why only these texts were chosen to be axed while others were left untouched.
•This act of elimination will hopefully motivate several to read these writers and explore their work with greater interest. The same happened in the past when texts such as A.K. Ramanujan’s Three Hundred Ramayanas and Rohinton Mistry’s A Fine Balance were dropped from university syllabi under political pressure. Needless to say, banned books have always aroused great curiosity amongst readers.
Reading Indian writing
•It was a welcome move by Delhi University to teach the writings of Mahasweta Devi and Bama as part of the English syllabus and wean such courses away from their excessive Eurocentrism. To read Indian literature in translation is one of the best introductions to the country and its enormous literary wealth. Through such a practice, students are also taught to read and appreciate literature in the comfort of a familiar context and become informed citizens. While world literature has its own merits, an introduction to Indian writing and especially those that help us to be ‘critical insiders’ (a term that the writer U.R. Ananthamurthy used) will go a long way in creating passionate learners. Isn’t that the purpose of education after all?
📰 The Afghan theatre and judging India’s responses
Closing the embassy in Kabul does not fall among the questionable decisions in the country’s foreign policy stance
•The Government’s decision to pull out all staff from the Indian Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, including the Ambassador, has come in for much adverse comment among analysts and experts. It is argued that all major powers, including China, Russia and Iran, have maintained their missions. We would have been of much better help to our citizens and others had we remained there instead of packing our bags and leaving in such haste. At the least, it is said, we ought to have had a consular office at the airport, such as the one said to have been kept by the Americans. Some have even stated that the Taliban had requested India to maintain its embassy, meaning thereby that they had assured us of safety. This is a brief summary of the views of those critical of the Government.
Where India stands
•This writer has no means of verifying whether or not the Taliban had made such an approach to the Government and would not like to second-guess its decision. But it seems to me, that on balance, the Government was justified in taking the decision that it did.
•First, India is not a major power, particularly when it comes to Afghanistan. We have not followed an independent or national interest-based policy towards the events in that country. This is true also of the previous Government. We have let the Americans decide our actions. To reiterate, we have never been a major player in Afghanistan. All we did was to support whatever government was installed in Kabul by the United States, first that of Hamid Karzai, and then Ashraf Ghani.
•Putting all the eggs in the Ghani basket was wrong. He might have been a good academic and authority on developing countries, but he was not a statesman or a good administrator, besides being corrupt and tolerating corruption on a massive scale. Also, he was not a free agent, having to do America’s bidding all the time. We poured money — $3 billion worth — in small and medium projects across the country, which has undoubtedly earned us goodwill among the people of Afghanistan. But that did not earn us any role in the political consultations or so-called reconciliation negotiations among the stakeholders.
Feelers to the Taliban
•In other words, India has not been a relevant player in whatever mattered most in relation to Afghanistan.
•Criticism of the Government for not engaging the Taliban, not establishing contacts with them, is fully justified. It is reported in the media that the Government did engage the Taliban of late; the Government has not denied this claim. However, if it did begin talking to the Taliban, it was too little, too late.
•We should have been open about it and established contacts at the senior level of the Taliban. Other powers did — China, Russia and even Iran, a Shia-majority country openly talking to a Shia-hating Sunni terror group. Even America started talking, openly, without feeling in the least embarrassed, to the Taliban at the senior level; this is the terrorist group which is estimated to have killed 2,500 American military personnel since 2001.
•We were obviously not wanting to upset Ashraf Ghani. We could not talk to the Taliban because they refused to talk to the Government. As Ambassador Vivek Katju has argued, engaging does not imply endorsing. This was a serious lapse. We have to talk to people whom we may find distasteful to talk to, whether it is Pakistan, China or the Taliban.
•Even if we had had skeleton staff for consular work, how would those needing consular help have approached them? Nobody wanted to risk going out, everybody was afraid of gun-toting Taliban fighters. Online help? That could be extended from anywhere. Now, the Government has even cancelled all the visas issued so far; not a convincing way to render consular assistance.
•If the Taliban did give an assurance of safety and requested us not to close the embassy, how could we rely on their word? Did we, do we, have the means to force them to keep their word? The Americans have; they can still cause a huge amount of harm to the Taliban; they have assets on the ground to do so, and which they are not able to deploy fully to protect their people.
The other groups
•And it is not just the Taliban. There are other groups in Afghanistan that are inimical to India — the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Jaish-e-Mohammed, as well as the Islamic State in Khorasan (ISK, or ISIS K). The Government had possibly intelligence about the threats posed by these groups. It is reported that they provided thousands of fighters to the Taliban in their jihad against foreign forces. They are a potent threat to us now, also perhaps to the Taliban as demonstrated by the horrific suicide bombing on August 26 which took the lives of at least 13 American military personnel and many more Afghans. Even if one of our citizens had been killed, there would have been an outcry.
Foreign policy approach
•One can criticise the Government for some approaches it has followed in foreign policy, for example aligning so closely with America which has, in turn, has caused the Russians to be unhappy with us and which has led them to move closer to our enemy, China. Giving such huge importance to the Quad (composed of the U.S., Australia, India, and Japan) is also a questionable decision; the Quad is an American manoeuvre to contain China; it is an unabashedly anti-China arrangement which perhaps we ought not to have embraced so enthusiastically. But closing the embassy in Kabul does not fall among the questionable decisions.
