📰 Lockdowns slowed green energy push: Report
Increased capacity could have met demand surge after economic reopening, says Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis report.
•The lockdowns slowed renewable energy installations in the country and the pace of such installation is lagging India’s 2022 target, according to a report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).
•As part of its comittment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, India has said that it would install 175 gigawatts (GW) of green energy by 2022 and 450GW by 2030 but only 7 GW of such capacity was added in FY 2020/21, said Vibhuti Garg, report author and energy economist.
•A gigawatt is 1,000 megawatts.
•Data from the Central Electricity Authority independently shows that India was to have installed 100 GW of solar energy capacity by March 2023 — 40 GW rooftop solar and 60 GW ground-mounted utility scale. The country has managed to install only 43.94 GW till July 31, 2021.
•In its analysis of monthly volumes and prices at the largest power exchange in India, Indian Energy Exchange (IEX), the IEEFA study found that the amount of power traded increased by 20% over 2020, by 37% compared to 2019 and by 30% over 2018. This led to prices on average increasing by 38% compared to 2020, by 8% compared to 2019 and by 11% over 2018.
•“Clearly as economic growth revives, electricity demand grows and average prices at the exchange increase,” says Ms. Garg.
•Had there been more access to renewable energy, particularly wind and hydropower, it could have contributed to lower energy prices, the report says.
•IEEFA’s analysis shows coal stocks hit a new record high of 1,320 lakh tonnes (Mt) at the end of FY2020/21 and exceeded the monthly averages of the previous five years. Having reduced its reliance on imported coal and replaced it with domestic coal, Coal India Ltd, India's largest coal producer, had about two months’ supply.
•However, an analysis of the daily coal stock position exhibited a “deterioration” as more plants reported supplies were critical. On August 1, 23 plants with installed capacity of 33GW had critical coal supplies. By September 9, this increased to 92 with an installed capacity of 112 GW and by September 22, 102 with installed capacity of 123GW.
•“Most plants had coal stockpiles for 1 to 5 days. However the requirement for thermal power plants is to maintain coal supplies for 21 days or at least 15,” says Ms. Garg, “In most cases, the issue of supply was at the thermal power producer end, rather than the issue of coal stock shortage at CIL end.”
•Imported coal prices have been rising in the past few months because of resurgent demand after the pandemic — especially in emerging Asian markets such as China and India, but also in Japan, South Korea, Europe and the U.S.
•“Greater reliance on coal imports will increase thermal power prices in India, leading to higher prices for the ultimate consumers,” says Ms. Garg.
•IEEFA notes that the challenge of India’s growing daily peak demand does not require investment in excess baseload thermal capacity. Instead, the electricity system needed “flexible and dynamic generation solutions” such as battery storage, pumped hydro storage, peaking gas-fired capacity and flexible operation of its existing coal fleet.
•“Government should accelerate deployment of such sources to help meet peak demand and also balance the grid at a lower cost,” says Ms. Garg. Their prices were falling and so would be cost effective and a buffer against very high prices at the power exchange during peak demand.
Move will enable transparency in pricing, country will become ‘price setter’ in ecosystem, says Tyagi
•The board of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), on Tuesday approved the framework for a gold exchange as well as for vault managers.
•These were proposals made in the last Union Budget.
•The approval paves the way for gold exchanges to be set up for trading in ‘Electronic Gold Receipt’. (EGR) like in the case of other securities.
•Existing stock exchanges will be allowed to provide the platform for trading of EGRs, SEBI said after the board meeting held in Mumbai on Tuesday.
•The denomination for trading of EGR and conversion of EGR into gold will be decided by the stock exchange with the approval of SEBI, chairman Ajay Tyagi, said while addressing the media.
•The clearing corporation will settle the trades executed on the stock exchanges by way of transferring EGRs and funds to the buyer and seller, respectively, he said.
•EGR holders, at their discretion, can withdraw the underlying gold from the vaults after surrendering the EGRs.
•SEBI-accredited vault managers will be responsible for the storage and safekeeping of gold deposits, creation of EGRs, withdrawal of gold, grievance redressal and periodic reconciliation of physical gold with the records of depository.
•The vault manager will have a networth of at least ₹50 crore.
•On the broader objective of such exchanges, , Mr. Tyagi said, “India is a net importer of gold. We are price takers and not price setters. The whole idea is to move from being price takers to be price setters. Price discovery at the exchanges will lead to... transparency in gold pricing.”
•He added that the gold exchanges would provide transparent price discovery, investment liquidity and assurance in the quality of gold.
•The SEBI board also approved an amendment to SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations 1996 to enable the introduction of Silver Exchange Traded Funds with certain safeguards in line with the existing mechanism for gold ETFs.
•The market regulator also approved the framework for separate a Social Stock Exchange for listing of non-profit organisations and for-profit social enterprises that are engaged in 15 broad eligible social activities approved SEBI.
•With this, social entities can raise funds via equity, issue of zero-coupon, zero-principal bonds, mutual funds, social impact funds and development impact bonds.
•Social Venture Funds will be rechristened Social Impact Funds and can have a reduced corpus of ₹5 crore against ₹20 crore prescribed earlier, Mr. Tyagi said.
•SEBI will now engage with Nabard, Sidbi and stock exchanges towards institution of a capacity building fund with corpus of ₹100 crore.
•Bringing some changes in merger and acquisition norms, SEBI said if an acquirer wanted to delist a company, then he/she should offer a suitable premium over the open offer price.
•If a company does not delist after the open offer and the acquirer has crossed the 75% holding mark, a 12-month cooling period will be allowed for making a second attempt using the reverse book-building mechanism. If it is still not successful, the acquirer will have to comply with the minimum public shareholding norms within one year, Mr. Tyagi said.
📰 Tackling the Maoists: On Left Wing Extremism
The insurgency has weakened but its potency in select areas has not reduced
•In a meeting with State leaders and representatives, Home Minister Amit Shah noted that the geographical influence of the Maoists has reduced from 96 districts in 10 States in 2010 to 41 now. The contraction is not surprising. Armed struggle has found few takers beyond select pockets untouched by development or linkages with the welfare state; and far from consolidating its presence — a prospect that seemed possible following the merger of two major Naxalite groups into the proscribed Communist Party of India (Maoist) — the organisation is limited to the remote and densely forested terrains of central and east-central India. Rather than mobilising discontents with the Indian state by projecting its weaknesses and ensuring inclusion and welfare, the Maoists have privileged armed struggle, invited state repression and sought to use this to recruit adherents. Such a strategy has led to some of India’s poorest people, the tribals in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand in particular, being caught up in endless violence, and also caused severe losses to the Maoists as well as anti-insurgent security forces. This has followed the predictable path of most Maoist insurrections that retained armed struggle to achieve their aims – in the Philippines and Peru, for example — leaving behind death and violence rather than enabling genuine uplift of the poor. Despite these, the Maoists have not budged from their flawed understanding of the nature of the Indian state and democracy, unwilling to accept that the poor people, whom they claim to represent, seek greater engagement with the electoral and welfare system.
•The Maoist insurgency still has potency in South Bastar in Chhattisgarh, the Andhra-Odisha border and in some districts in Jharkhand. These States must focus on expansive welfare and infrastructure building even as security forces try to weaken the Maoists. Frequent skirmishes and attacks have not only affected the security forces but also left many tribal civilians caught in the crossfire. A purely security-driven approach fraught with human rights’ violations has only added to the alienation among the poor in these areas. The Maoists must be compelled to give up their armed struggle and this can only happen if the tribal people and civil society activists promoting peace are also empowered. The Indian government should not be satisfied with the mere weakening of the Maoist insurgency and reduce commitments made for the developmental needs of some districts of concern in States such as Jharkhand, as its Chief Minister has alleged. The Union government and the States must continue to learn from successes such as the expansion of welfare and rights paradigms in limiting the movement and failures that have led to the continuing spiral of violence in select districts.
📰 Germany as a development actor in a post-Merkel era
The new Chancellor must enable global cooperation policies for a sustainable future with India and the world
•The era of Angela Merkel, as Chancellor of Germany for the past 16 years, is coming to an end while the battle of a number of global crises is at its peak. The federal elections, on September 26, that mark the end of the Merkel-era, have given rise to a currently unforeseeable political future. So, how will Germany define its role as an important international agent in the fight against global challenges, including climate change, and fostering global sustainable development in line with the 2030 Agenda of the United Nations?
•Climate change, resource destruction and species extinction are limiting development opportunities and global scope for action more than ever before. Major emerging economies, including India, and regional powers are, besides the ‘old’ countries of the West, since long shaping the economic, political and cultural interdependencies of a more complex, dynamic, accelerated world. And it is now time to act: to battle climate change and biodiversity loss, rising social inequalities and poverty, defend democracy and secure peace.
Key roles soon
•In this, Germany and India take on core roles in the coming two years: Germany, as the second biggest bilateral development donor globally (the United States is first), takes over the G7 presidency in 2022. India presides over the G20 in 2023. These offer an opportunity to mutually strengthen the processes of club governance and foster a focused dialogue among our political leaders and policy-making for a common future.
There is a shift now
•Yet, Germany’s ability to live up to this responsibility depends on the outcome of the recent elections and coalition negotiations. The field of international cooperation for sustainable development has, over the past 16 years, moved from the Millennium Development Goals of the UN that were formulated in New York as standards to be reached by low- and middle-income countries, to the understanding that poverty alleviation and fighting rising inequalities go hand in hand with combating environmental and climatic change processes. ‘Development’ was redefined as ‘sustainable development’ and thus, as a challenge to be addressed by all countries, and in all societal and economic sectors. An important instrument for achieving sustainable development is — as has become clearer than ever before — international and transregional cooperation on an equal eye-level, geared towards a global common good.
•Today, six years after the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Agreement were formulated and one and a half years into a global pandemic, we need radically transformative structural policies for the global common good and in line with the 2030 Agenda of the UN. Germany as the third biggest economy, in terms of its share in global trade, has to live up to its responsibility and set the course for these transformative changes. Yet, it can only do so in partnership, and especially in partnership with the big transition economies, including India. We need structural policies that foster the global common good. Core fields of action include reducing social inequalities, overcoming poverty and ensuring social justice, promoting social peace, political participation and cultural diversity, creating a climate-neutral and stable economic system, vehemently advocating for healthy ecosystems, stable climate and biodiversity.
•The key policy areas that need urgent attention have been highlighted again by the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to make financial markets, digitalisation and the economy sustainable; social protection, food and health systems need to be more robust; strengthen education, science and innovation, inclusive institutions for social cohesion, and promote rules-based, regional and multilateral governance.
Equitable cooperation
•This type of policy-making rests on cooperation on equal eye-level: between countries, social groups and living environments; between politics, business, science and society, and between ministerial departments. United and driven by the common goal of the global capacity to act. It is a global cooperation policy for our common sustainable future. Changing internal and external structures in a way that self-determination, political and economic participation and social peace are possible for all people in the future requires continuous dialogue around the identification and shaping of common values and preconditions for the future.
•This also means that a global cooperation policy for a sustainable future requires a strong governance architecture. It can only be realised through the interplay of domestic and externally-oriented departments, different decision-making levels from local to global, and politics, business and society working together. However, strategic leadership and coordination must be anchored at the cabinet level, in a ministry whose political logic does not focus only on economic growth or poverty reduction, security or climate protection, but lays emphasis on stronger global cooperation for the global common good. The reduction of social inequalities must be addressed in conjunction with climate protection, political participation and economic prosperity.
•The focus must be on the dynamics between the global megatrends of our time; not on ministry-specific single transformational steps. Germany’s Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development brings the necessary experience to this task. But it needs the will to innovate now, has to develop a strategic vision, and requires the necessary decision-making powers and resources. The partners of cooperation for global transformative change are transition and high-income countries just as much as low-income countries. The multilateral level of cooperation must thus move to the centre, supported by bilateral and European cooperation on all continents.
Glasgow meet as opportunity
•The cooperation with India is of key importance — as a transregional player — in fighting social inequalities and addressing climate change. The global differences in combating the COVID-19-pandemic with COVID-19 recovery funds amounting to 16% of GDP in high income countries, 4% in middle income and only 1% in low-income countries, meet the continuous increases in greenhouse gas emissions. The upcoming COP26 in Glasgow thus serves as an important platform to negotiate investments into the greenhouse gas neutral transformations of India’s energy and transport sectors just as much as into the social security systems enabling societal capacities to live with the crises ahead.
•A global cooperation policy for a sustainable future must adopt a planetary perspective with a focus on the dynamics between social, ecological and economic change processes, cultivate dialogue across departmental boundaries and systematically shape transformative structural policy for the global common good. Germany in a post-Merkel era requires wise leadership in the Chancellor’s office that turns its attention to younger generations and to the world, recognises the urgency of global cooperation policies for a sustainable future with India and the world, and supports them at the cabinet table. The elections have to pave the way accordingly.
📰 NEET fails the multidimensional construct of merit
The policy of a single test needs to be reviewed to attain the lofty goals of the New Education Policy
•The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government in Tamil Nadu has now passed a law scrapping the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET). Called the Permanent Exemption Bill for NEET, it exempts medical aspirants in Tamil Nadu from taking NEET for admission to undergraduate degree courses in medicine, dentistry and homoeopathy. Many, including judges of the Supreme Court of India, were of the opinion that NEET would be most student friendly as it would not only save them from the trouble of appearing in multiple tests but also ensure a transparent and fair system of medical admissions. But how this ‘one-test, one-nation’ policy would really affect students, particularly those from rural and underprivileged sections, has not been studied properly. How it would undermine the rights of minority institutions too was not given much importance. What has been the experience of other countries with such tests? What would be the true implications of a one test policy on federalism?
A revived debate
•In accordance with the DMK’s electoral promise of promoting equity in medical admissions, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, constituted a high-level committee under the chairmanship of retired Madras High Court judge, Justice A.K. Rajan. After the High Court had dismissed a petition by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) State Secretary K. Nagarajan against the constitution of this committee, the DMK government moved with god speed and got the law against NEET passed by the State Assembly. Of course this law will not be able to help students as the President of India is unlikely to give his assent to it as the BJP had opposed it. Yet, the enactment of this law has succeeded in reviving the debate about the usefulness of NEET. While medical education is on the Concurrent list (Entry 25), it is subject to the maintenance of standards in higher education which is within the domain of the central government under the Union list (Entry 66). In any case, the field is occupied by the central law namely Section 14 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 that provides for NEET. NEET is a unique system of admission as no admission in medicine is possible in India without clearing NEET. The idea of common tests was initiated by Murli Manohar Joshi as the HRD Minister in the A.B. Vajpayee government. It found some support in the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (2002). NEET was notified by the Medical Council of India (MCI) in 2010 but in 2013, a three-judge majority decision in Christian Medical College Vellore Association vs Union of India and Others had struck down NEET. The decision was widely criticised as being pro-rich, for pro-coaching centres, and anti-student and one which would lower the standards of medical education. As a result, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 was amended and Section 10D was inserted to empower the MCI to conduct NEET. Moreover the review petition against this judgment was allowed in 2016 and the Supreme Court ordered the conduct of NEET from 2016 itself.
Imposed by the judiciary
•Surprisingly, the Bench did not accept even the Government of India’s repeated requests to permit State governments to conduct their tests at least in 2016. NEET was thus imposed by the Court and not the Narendra Modi government. Interestingly, the Court did not pay much attention to its own judgment in Islamic Academy of Education and Another (2003) where a five-judge Bench had clarified T.M.A. Pai Foundation and held that institutions that have a special feature and have a fair and transparent admission procedure for at least the last 25 years can seek an exemption from the common admission test.
•The Justice Arun Mishra-led Bench in 2020 again upheld NEET even in respect of minority institutions. Article 30 gives them the right to admit students of their choice. ‘Choice’ cannot be limited just to the right to reservation. Each university or institution has a right to emphasize some special areas of study. For instance, the Gandhi Medical College, Seva Gram, Vardha, had a paper on Gandhian Studies in its test. Similar was the case with the Armed Forces Medical College which used to test a student in defence studies.
•Instances of alleged question paper leakage in the very first year of NEET, media reports of unfair means and examination malpractices by students show that both NEET as well as JEE are not fool-proof tests satisfying the parameters of fairness and transparency.
Data on post-NEET impact
•The A.K. Rajan report has substantiated arguments against a single test in its 165-page report. A majority of the 86,342 people the panel spoke to were opposed to NEET. The diversity in Tamil medical institutions has been affected with the introduction of NEET. The percentage of students from rural areas has dropped from 61.45% to 50.81%. Similarly, the percentage of candidates from government schools has gone down from 1.12% to 0.6%. The percentage of English medium students — already dominating medical education — went up from 85.12% to 98.01%. The percentage of students from the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has gone up to 38.84%. For students from economically poorer sections, it was a decline — from 47.42% to 41.05%. The number of first generation learners has gone down too. Post NEET, Tamil students constitute just 1.99%.
‘Elitism’ in NEET
•Unfortunately, the Supreme Court considered just the legality of NEET but overlooked the real impact NEET would have on the ground particularly on underprivileged candidates and minority institutions. Forget India with its huge regional disparities and marked differences in the standards of various State boards. Even in the United States, a number of surveys found that it was mainly the children of mostly rich, white and politically powerful families who cleared prestigious common tests. Empirical research in the United States on standardised common tests has found that these tests are biased against the poorer and underprivileged sections of population, women and minorities. To overcome these problems, race-sensitive admission criteria were introduced, leading to the judgment in Grutter (2003). Thus, there is an element of class in NEET and the Justice Rajan committee has found hard evidence of such elitism. If similar committees are appointed in other States, there are sure to be identical findings.
•Moreover with just one national test, commercial coaching institutes are bound to prosper. And since most coaching centres are in the cosmopolitan and big cities, poorer students from a rural background, and who have studied in the vernacular medium, would always be at a disadvantage in any ‘one nation-one test’ policy. There is also large-scale variation in syllabus when it comes to the CBSE and State boards. Wrong translation of questions including in Tamil had also been a problem. If unequals are tested on the basis of one test, i.e. NEET, the mandate of equality is violated as Article 14 demands likes are to be treated alike, not unlikes are to be treated alike. Thus, it goes against the Preamble as it does not provide equal opportunity to all. What it basically achieves is just ‘formal’ rather than ‘substantive equality’ as it overlooks differences.
•The greatest argument in favour of NEET is judicial belief about the promotion of merit though without any clarity on the meaning of merit. The reality is that many private colleges even after NEET do admit students under Non Resident Indian and management quota on extremely low scores i.e. much lower than the scores of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class categories.
•Merit requires fair competition and equality of opportunity. Is it not a fact that the central government and judges sincerely believe that the multidimensional construct of merit can be adequately, if not accurately, measured? When NEET does not satisfactorily meet this fundamental criterion, competition cannot be termed as fair and just, and the equality of opportunity becomes illusory. There is substantial scholarship in the West (Sacks, Freedle, Wells, Camara and Schmidt) that common admission tests cannot measure abilities that are essential for learning such as imagination, curiosity and motivation. NEET does not test qualities that a doctor must possess such as compassion, empathy and passion to serve humanity. Accordingly hardly any doctor is willing to serve in rural areas. NEET toppers won’t necessarily make good doctors.
•While the Tamil Nadu government should try to improve educational standards of its schools, the NEET syllabus should not be based entirely on CBSE. The central government too should review the policy of a single test so that diversity of the society is reflected in our medical institutions and the goals of the New Education Policy — of equity, inclusion and access — are realised.
📰 How to grease the wheels of justice
The problem of pendency of cases in courts across the country can be tackled with a few measures
•Speaking at an event organised by the Karnataka Bar Council, Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana quoted a former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Warren Burger, “The notion that ordinary people want black robed judges, well-dressed lawyers in fine courtrooms as settings to resolve their disputes is incorrect. People with problems, like people with pains, want relief and they want it as quickly and inexpensively as possible.” He made a plea to ‘Indianise’ courts to make them responsive to the needs of the Indian citizens.
•The Chief Justice of India has the historic opportunity to make this happen. At present, despite good intentions, the nation’s judiciary is hurtling towards a disaster and needs immediate attention. A measure of the justice delivery system is the pendency of cases in courts across the country. We have seen a significant deterioration in this aspect as shown in the table.
•More than 40% of cases are decided after three years in India, while in many other countries less than 1% of cases are decided after three years. If India does not act decisively and quickly, this percentage will keep increasing. The rich, the powerful and the wrongdoers have a field day by getting their cases expedited or delayed as they wish. The increase in corruption and crime is a direct fallout of the sluggish justice delivery system. This severely impacts the poor and marginalised. For them, the judicial process itself becomes a punishment. Data show that about 70% of prisoners in India are undertrials and are mostly poor citizens.
Filling vacancies
•Two measures can be implemented within two years to tackle this issue. First, reduce the pendency of cases by filling sanctioned judicial positions. Analysis shows that between 2006 and 2019, the average increase in pendency was less than 2% per year whereas the average vacancy in sanctioned judicial positions was about 21%. If the sanctioned positions had been filled, pendency of cases would have gone down each year.
•The nation neither needs 70,000 judges, as claimed by former Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur, nor does it need to double the present number of judges. It needs to add about 20% of judges. This is in line with the sanctioned strength. This figure has been endorsed by Justice B.N. Srikrishna, Justice R.C. Chavan and 100 IIT alumni. The responsibility of selecting judges is largely with the judiciary itself. The responsibility of appointments in the subordinate judiciary lies with the State governments and their respective High Courts. The responsibility of ensuring near-zero vacancies should be with the Chief Justices of the High Courts and the Chief Justice of India and they should be held accountable for the same. Right now, nobody believes that they are accountable, and filling judicial vacancies is not considered a matter of priority.
•Filling all vacancies may result in a requirement of about 5,000 courtrooms. A simple solution would be to run 5,000 courts in two shifts.
Use of technology
•The second is to improve working with the use of technology. The e-Committee of the Supreme Court has been in existence since 2005. It has made three outstanding recommendations which are not being followed. One, computer algorithms should decide on case listing, case allocation and adjournments with only a 5% override given to judges. It said all rational reasons and limits should be put on adjournments; case listing should give main weightage to ‘first in, first out’; and case allocation should take into account logical criteria. This would be a big step in reducing arbitrariness and the unfair advantage that the powerful enjoy.
•Two, the courts should focus on e-filing. The e-Committee made detailed SOPs on how petitions and affidavits can be filed and payment of fees can be done electronically without lawyers or litigants having to travel to the courts or use paper. This should be implemented in all seriousness and would also save about three lakh trees annually.
•Three, it focused on virtual hearings. COVID-19 prompted the courts to adopt virtual hearings. However, virtual hearings were held only in some cases while physical hearings were held in most. In pre-COVID-19 years, the increase in the pendency of cases in all courts used to be about 5.7 lakh cases a year. In 2020 alone, it increased to an astonishing 51 lakh. It appears that if a hybrid virtual hearing model is not adopted, the backlog of cases could cross 5 crore in 2022. The dysfunctional justice system will be perpetually overwhelmed.
•All the courts in the country must switch to a hybrid virtual mode immediately and start disposing cases. Even after the COVID-19 crisis ends, it would be beneficial to continue hybrid virtual courts. This will make access to justice easier for litigants, reduce costs, and also give a fair opportunity to young lawyers from small towns. The required hardware is available in all courts.
No change in laws
•All the recommendations — e-filing of petitions, affidavits and payment of fees; algorithm-based computerised listing, roster, case allocation and adjournments with only a 5% override to be given to judges; hybrid virtual hearings; filling judicial vacancies; and holding Chief Justices responsible for ensuring that vacancies in judicial positions are less than 5% — are based on the Supreme Court’s various decisions and the e-Committee’s recommendations. These would require no changes in laws. At a conference, High Court Chief Justices and the Chief Justice of India and the government could make decisions on all of this.
•If all this is done, India’s judicial system can rank among the 10 top countries of the world. These changes would make India the preferred nation for international investments and also fulfil the fundamental right to speedy justice of citizens.
📰 The pursuit of happiness through justice
The great degree of unhappiness in Indian society has a lot to do with the way the law and its institutions operate
•Until the beginning of the publication of the United Nations World Happiness Report in 2012, happiness was not considered an objective of governance. But it has now emerged as a new measure of the quality of governance. The connection between law, governance and happiness has been gaining considerable attention over the years. This is because the report has shown time and again that countries with a higher GDP and higher per capita income are not necessarily the happiest.
Dismal performance
•The United Nations World Happiness Report of 2021 ranks India 139 out of 149 countries. Happiness was measured by also taking into consideration the effects of COVID-19 on the people and their evaluation of the performance of governance systems. The report shows that COVID-19-induced social distancing had a severe impact on happiness as sharing and community life were hugely affected during the pandemic.
•India’s dismal performance on happiness is crucial if we look at governance and the law. Happiness has never been considered an explicit goal of public policy in India. The trust and confidence enjoyed by public institutions are quite pertinent in the happiness score sheet. Guarantees of rights, participation, dignity, and social justice are crucial in the determination of happiness in a society like India.
•We tend to limit the role of law to a mere sanctioning instrumentality which satisfies the retributive instincts of people. However, the law is capable of creating many positive obligations, which may lead to a collective conscience, care and cooperation. It is capable of making people feel that they have a role in resolving their problems through distributive justice. “To feel that your lost wallet would be returned if found by a police officer, by a neighbour, or a stranger, was considered to be a measure of happiness than income, unemployment, and major health risks,” the report states.
•Law ought to bring happiness to the lives of people. The great degree of unhappiness in Indian society has a lot to do with the way the law and its institutions operate. People live in pain and anguish as their legitimate grievances remain unaddressed by the legal system. It is erroneous to believe that every case that is decided by the courts brings happiness to the people. According to the World Justice Report, as many as 40% of people live outside the protection of law in the world. More than 5 billion people fall into this ‘justice gap’. India’s share is very big in these figures. The estimated figure of 3.5 crore pending cases in various courts of the country is not merely a number as all those connected with these cases are in a state of anxiety. They are certainly not happy people. Typically, the criminal justice system for these people is a source of unhappiness.
•India’s rule of law rank was 69 as per the World Justice report 2021. It has a chilling effect on the right to life, liberty, economic justice, dignity and national integration. Justice in India hardly seems to espouse the goal of happiness in society. Criminal justice drastically impacts the lives of people. It is capable of providing safety but it also leads to fear, stigma and repression. People are rarely satisfied with the police and courts in this country.
Lower crime rates, happier societies
•The data suggest that happy countries have lower crime rates. Crime and its resultant suffering are a major source of unhappiness. For instance, in Finland, Denmark, the Philippines, South Africa, India and Sri Lanka, at least one of the four crime variables share an inverse relation with the happiness score of the nation. It means that individuals living in nations with high crime rates are less happy and satisfied than individuals living in nations with comparatively lower crime rates. Countries scoring high on the Rule of Law Index also score well on the index of happiness. Second, in the report, happiness levels were significantly determined by various socio-demographic factors like health, education, crime rate, criminal victimisation and fear of crime.
•Nations are now responding to the happiness index. The United Arab Emirates was the first country in the world to have set up a Ministry of Happiness. The Ministry monitors the impact of policies through a happiness meter and takes measures to ensure a better life. Bhutan introduced Gross National Happiness as a measure of good governance. Rothstein and Uslaner (2005) say that honest and effective governments can create more socio-economic equality. This leads a greater number of people reposing trust in their government, which is an important condition for happiness.
📰 Bureaucracy’s digital challenge
If civil servants don’t use social media appropriately, their role as independent advisers stands threatened
•The biggest challenge today to Indian bureaucracy is the shift from desk to digital. This shift is not limited to a transition towards e-office and e-governance, but includes the organisational and bureaucratic response to digital spaces, especially the use of social media. The focus has been mostly on the former, while the latter has remained largely unaddressed.
To use or not to use social media
•There are two opinions on the use of social media by civil servants. While there are many people, including former civil servants, who are in favour of civil servants using social media in their official capacity, others argue that anonymity, the defining feature of Indian bureaucracy, gets compromised in the process. In fact, as an organisational form, the bureaucracy is incompatible with social media. While bureaucracy is characterised by hierarchy, formal relationships and standard procedures, social media is identified by openness, transparency and flexibility.
•It is true that many civil servants have become accessible to the common people and public service delivery issues have been resolved through the use of social media. Social media has also created a positive outlook towards an institution long perceived as opaque and inaccessible. Social media has increased awareness among people about government policies and programmes.
•But social media also does more. It provides an opportunity to bureaucrats to shape the public discourse and engage with the public while being politically neutral. At a time when the tendency among the political executive is to receive the very remarks or advice from bureaucrats that they want to hear, social media ensures that blind obeying is minimised and bureaucrats serve the people.
•Anonymity has been a hallmark of Westminster bureaucracies, including in India. But there is a basic contradiction in remaining habitually anonymous while governance in public is now the new normal. Further, values are becoming more dominant than facts in public policymaking. And both values and facts are getting reshaped due to fake news and systematic propaganda within public policy circles as well. In such a scenario, the bureaucracy, which is expected to be the epitome of public values and a storehouse of facts, shouldn’t be expected to govern in private.
•The use of social media is gradually getting institutionalised in many Westminster system-based countries. During the Brexit debate in the U.K., many civil servants shaped public debate through the use of social media even while remaining politically neutral. In India, civil servants haven’t reflected on this aspect of digital bureaucracy. Anonymity and opaqueness have already been watered down through the Right to Information Act of 2005. But they continue to be prominent features.
Accessibility and accountability
•In India, the role of social media in bureaucracy has taken a different direction. Social media is getting used by civil servants for self-promotion. Through their selective posts and promotion of these posts by their social media fans, civil servants create a narrative of their performance. All this is justified in the name of accessibility and accountability. There is a wrong notion getting entrenched in the public consciousness that social media is the way to access civil servants and make them accountable. Social media may have improved accessibility and accountability, but it is important to note that civil servants are at an advantage to share the information they want and respond to those they want. It is not a formal set-up where accessibility and accountability are based on uniformity of treatment. Social media accountability is no alternative to institutional and citizen-centric accountability. It is, in fact, partly unethical to use social media during office hours and justify it when some people who have travelled long distances are waiting outside the office.
•Bureaucrats should use social media to improve public policies. If they don’t use social media appropriately, their role as independent advisers stands threatened.
