📰 Centre wants to keep birth, death database
Keen to be parallel repository of data, along with States
•The Centre has proposed amendments to a 1969 law that will enable it to “maintain the database of registered birth and deaths at the national level”.
•The database may be used to update the Population Register and the electoral register, and Aadhaar, ration card, passport and driving licence databases, says the proposed amendment to the Registration of Births and Deaths Act (RBD), 1969.
•Presently, the registration of births and deaths is done by the local registrar appointed by States. It is proposed that the Chief Registrar (appointed by the States) would maintain a unified database at the State level and integrate it with the data at the “national level,” maintained by the Registrar General of India (RGI). The amendments will imply that the Centre will be a parallel repository of data.
•The database may be used to update the Population Register and the electoral register, and Aadhaar, ration card, passport and driving licence databases, says the proposed amendment to the Registration of Births and Deaths Act (RBD), 1969.
•A new Section 3 A is proposed to be inserted in the Act, which says, “The Registrar General, India shall maintain the database of registered births and deaths at the national level, that may be used, with the approval of the Central government, to update the Population Register prepared under the Citizenship Act, 1955; electoral registers or electoral rolls prepared under the Representation of the People Act, 1951; Aadhaar database prepared under the Aadhaar Act, 2016; ration card database prepared under the National Food Security Act, 2013; passport database prepared under the Passport Act; and the driving licence database under the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, and other databases at the national level subject to proviso of Section 17 (1) of the RBD Act, 1969.”
•If the amendments are implemented, the Centre could use the data to update the National Population Register (NPR), first prepared in 2010 and revised through door-to-door enumeration in 2015. The NPR already has a database of 119 crore residents and under the Citizenship Rules, 2003, it is the first step towards the creation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
•Rule 4(1) of the Citizenship Rules, 2003, says that the Central government shall, “for the purpose of the NRC, cause to carry throughout the country a house-to-house enumeration for collection of specified particulars relating to each family and individual, residing in a local area, including the citizenship status.”
•The NPR is to be updated with fresh questions such as mother tongue, place of birth of father and mother, and the last place of residence along with the first phase of Census 2021, postponed indefinitely due to COVID-19.
•Another proposed change is the appointment of “Special Sub-Registrars, in the event of disaster, with any or all of his powers and duties for on the spot registration of deaths and issuance of extract thereof, as may be prescribed.”
"The Union of India has not specifically denied the Pegasus allegations."
•The Supreme Court on Wednesday appointed an independent expert technical committee overseen by a former apex court judge, Justice R.V. Raveendran, to examine allegations that the government used an Israeli spyware, Pegasus, to snoop on its own citizens.
•Noting that the snooping allegations are “grave” and truth should be out, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana asked the committee to submit its report “expeditiously”. It posted the next hearing after eight weeks.
•Justice Raveendran would oversee the functioning of the technical committee and would be assisted by Alok Joshi, former IPS officer (1976 batch) and Dr. Sundeep Oberoi, Chairman, Sub Committee in (International Organisation of Standardisation/International Electro-Technical Commission/Joint Technical Committee).
•The three members of the technical committee would be Dr. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Professor (Cyber Security and Digital Forensics) and Dean, National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat; Dr. Prabaharan P., Professor (School of Engineering), Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri, Kerala; and Dr. Ashwin Anil Gumaste, Institute Chair Associate Professor (Computer Science and Engineering), Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Maharashtra.
•The court said it did not want to wander into any “political thicket” but India cannot remain mute in the face of the allegations when other countries across the globe have taken them seriously and kick-started efforts to know the truth.
•The order, read out in court by Chief Justice Ramana, cited several reasons which compelled the court to form a committee. These include reports that the snooping exercise had widely impacted the rights to privacy and freedom of speech of ordinary citizens. The court said it could not just stand there and ignore allegations that Pegasus affected the individual rights of the citizenry as a whole.
•The court took special care to highlight in its order about how the government refused to take a “clear stand” in court on whether the allegations were true or not. Even repeated suggestions made by the court to file a detailed affidavit in response to the allegations produced no effect on the government, which had ended up filing a two-page affidavit “providing no light” and, at the very most, a “vague denial”. This, the court noted, when the first allegations of Pegasus snooping had surfaced two years ago.
•“There was no specific denial of the allegations by the Union of India… Had the Union of India made its stand clear, there would have been less burden on the court,” Chief Justice Ramana said.
•The court dismissed the state’s apprehension that any disclosure, whatsoever, on the Pegasus issue would affect national security.
•Chief Justice Ramana, flanked by Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, pronounced that the government cannot get a “free pass”, citing the “bugbear” of violation of national security, when constitutional rights of the citizens were at stake. The government cannot merely evoke 'national security' to stonewall judicial review. There cannot be an omnibus denial of information. A balance has to be struck between cherished liberties and “necessary” surveillance by the State to protect the citizens’ liberties.
•Chief Justice Ramana read out that every citizen has a “reasonable right to privacy,choices, liberties and freedom”. Technology is useful, but it cannot be used to take away freedoms or launch a cyberattack on privacy.
•The court said the state uses surveillance but the power to spy should not affect individual rights.
•The Supreme Court expressed particular concern about the protection of journalistic freedom. It said the State should not create an atmosphere that has a “chilling effect” on the freedom of the press.
•The order came on the basis of petitions filed from several quarters, including by veteran journalists N. Ram and Sashi Kumar, the Editors Guild and individuals who were the victims of the alleged snooping.
•The court however declined a plea by the petitioners to have the Cabinet Secretary submit an affidavit in court, responding to Pegasus allegations.
•On September 23, the court had indicated its intention to form a committee to examine allegations. The court had reserved the case for interim orders on September 13 after the government expressed reservations about filing a "detailed" affidavit responding to the allegations. The Centre had said it would be too public and compromise national security.
•The court had reserved the case for order, making it clear to the government that there would be no more “beating around the bush” in the issue.
📰 Pegasus case | Government cannot expect a ‘free pass’ every time spectre national security is raised in court: SC
"The Union of India has not specifically denied the Pegasus allegations."
•The Supreme Court on Wednesday appointed an independent expert technical committee overseen by a former apex court judge, Justice R.V. Raveendran, to examine allegations that the government used an Israeli spyware, Pegasus, to snoop on its own citizens.
•Noting that the snooping allegations are “grave” and truth should be out, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana asked the committee to submit its report “expeditiously”. It posted the next hearing after eight weeks.
•Justice Raveendran would oversee the functioning of the technical committee and would be assisted by Alok Joshi, former IPS officer (1976 batch) and Dr. Sundeep Oberoi, Chairman, Sub Committee in (International Organisation of Standardisation/International Electro-Technical Commission/Joint Technical Committee).
•The three members of the technical committee would be Dr. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Professor (Cyber Security and Digital Forensics) and Dean, National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat; Dr. Prabaharan P., Professor (School of Engineering), Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri, Kerala; and Dr. Ashwin Anil Gumaste, Institute Chair Associate Professor (Computer Science and Engineering), Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Maharashtra.
•The court said it did not want to wander into any “political thicket” but India cannot remain mute in the face of the allegations when other countries across the globe have taken them seriously and kick-started efforts to know the truth.
•The order, read out in court by Chief Justice Ramana, cited several reasons which compelled the court to form a committee. These include reports that the snooping exercise had widely impacted the rights to privacy and freedom of speech of ordinary citizens. The court said it could not just stand there and ignore allegations that Pegasus affected the individual rights of the citizenry as a whole.
•The court took special care to highlight in its order about how the government refused to take a “clear stand” in court on whether the allegations were true or not. Even repeated suggestions made by the court to file a detailed affidavit in response to the allegations produced no effect on the government, which had ended up filing a two-page affidavit “providing no light” and, at the very most, a “vague denial”. This, the court noted, when the first allegations of Pegasus snooping had surfaced two years ago.
•“There was no specific denial of the allegations by the Union of India… Had the Union of India made its stand clear, there would have been less burden on the court,” Chief Justice Ramana said.
•The court dismissed the state’s apprehension that any disclosure, whatsoever, on the Pegasus issue would affect national security.
•Chief Justice Ramana, flanked by Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, pronounced that the government cannot get a “free pass”, citing the “bugbear” of violation of national security, when constitutional rights of the citizens were at stake. The government cannot merely evoke 'national security' to stonewall judicial review. There cannot be an omnibus denial of information. A balance has to be struck between cherished liberties and “necessary” surveillance by the State to protect the citizens’ liberties.
•Chief Justice Ramana read out that every citizen has a “reasonable right to privacy,choices, liberties and freedom”. Technology is useful, but it cannot be used to take away freedoms or launch a cyberattack on privacy.
•The court said the state uses surveillance but the power to spy should not affect individual rights.
•The Supreme Court expressed particular concern about the protection of journalistic freedom. It said the State should not create an atmosphere that has a “chilling effect” on the freedom of the press.
•The order came on the basis of petitions filed from several quarters, including by veteran journalists N. Ram and Sashi Kumar, the Editors Guild and individuals who were the victims of the alleged snooping.
•The court however declined a plea by the petitioners to have the Cabinet Secretary submit an affidavit in court, responding to Pegasus allegations.
•On September 23, the court had indicated its intention to form a committee to examine allegations. The court had reserved the case for interim orders on September 13 after the government expressed reservations about filing a "detailed" affidavit responding to the allegations. The Centre had said it would be too public and compromise national security.
•The court had reserved the case for order, making it clear to the government that there would be no more “beating around the bush” in the issue.
📰 ‘Indiscriminate spying can’t be allowed’
The use of technology for surveillance by the state must be evidence-based, says SC in Pegasus order
•Indiscriminate spying on individuals by the state is not allowed in a democracy, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday. The use of technology for surveillance by the state must be evidence-based, the court said.
•A Bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, in its order in the Pegasus snooping case, said surveillance to flush out terror activities is essential to protect life and liberty. A need may arise to encroach into individual privacy to access information vital to prevent violence and terror.
•However, the state can violate a person’s privacy only if it is “absolutely necessary” to protect national security and interests. The necessity to trespass on individual privacy should be proportional.
•“In a democratic country governed by the rule of law, indiscriminate spying on individuals cannot be allowed except with sufficient statutory safeguards, by following the procedure established by law under the Constitution,” the Supreme Court noted.
•“It is undeniable that surveillance and the knowledge that one is under the threat of being spied on can affect the way an individual decides to exercise his or her rights. Such a scenario might result in self-censorship,” the CJI-led Bench observed in the Pegasus order.
•The order was based on separate petitions filed by senior journalists N. Ram and Sashi Kumar; Rajya Sabha member John Brittas; Supreme Court lawyer M.L. Sharma; and journalists including Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, S.N.M. Abdi, Prem Shankar Jha, Rupesh Kumar Singh and Ipsa Shataksi, who alleged that they were victims of Pegasus surveillance. They claimed to have been subjected to “deeply intrusive surveillance”. They said a forensic examination done by Amnesty International on mobile phones had revealed traces of interference. The Government had “deliberately avoided” public debate on the issue, they said.
•The petitioners had sought a “complete overhaul” of the “surveillance architecture” by even challenging the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885; Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951; Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000; and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption) of Information Rules, 2009.
📰 A credible probe: On Supreme Court verdict on Pegasus row
The Centre must fully cooperate with the inquiry instituted by the SC on spyware use
•The Supreme Court order instituting an independent probe into the possible use of Israeli spyware Pegasus is an effective intervention to protect citizens from unlawful surveillance, as well as a stern rebuff to the Government’s attempt to cover up the issue by using the bogey of ‘national security’. It was clear from day one, following the revelations that nearly 300 of some 50,000 phone numbers allegedly identified for surveillance belonged to Indians, that the Government would choose to brazen it out rather than hold or facilitate a credible inquiry. Ultimately, its tactic of sticking to a blanket denial of any wrongdoing, without acknowledging whether or not the spyware was available to government agencies, failed. The 46-page order by a Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana, stands out for the enunciation of two clear principles: that surveillance, or even the knowledge that one could be spied upon, affects the way individuals exercise their rights, warranting the Court’s intervention; and that there is no omnibus prohibition on judicial review merely because the spectre of national security is being raised. The Court deemed unacceptable the Government’s refusal to shed any light on a controversy that involves possible violation of citizens’ rights and made it clear that national security considerations cannot be used by the state “to get a free pass”. The Court has approached the issue as one that raises an “Orwellian concern”, recognising that intrusive surveillance not only violates the right to privacy but also has a chilling effect on the freedom of the press.
•When damning revelations emerged that many phones of journalists, activists and even doctors and court staff were targets of military-grade spyware designed not only to grab data but also take control of devices, the Government ought to have responded, as some nations did, with alarm and alacrity. Instead, it resorted to a bald claim that illegal surveillance is not possible in India, and that the disclosure of whether or not a particular software suite was used by its agencies would compromise national security. The Court is right in making it plain that any such concern or claim of immunity ought to have been substantiated on affidavit. What is quite appalling is that the Government was unwilling even to disclose what action had been taken after it admitted in Parliament in 2019 that it was aware of some WhatsApp users being targeted by Pegasus. Its offer of ordering an inquiry on its own has been rightly rejected by the Court — it would command little credibility. The Court-supervised panel appears to have the required expertise and independence, but its success in unravelling the truth may depend on how much information it can extract from the Government and its surveillance agencies. For its part, the Government would do well to depart from its record of obfuscation and stonewalling and cooperate with the inquiry.
📰 Strengthening healthcare
ABHIM can fix the weaknesses in India’s health system
•COVID-19 exposed several weaknesses in India’s underfunded health system. Rural primary care is underfunded and has shortages of staff, equipment, drugs and infrastructure in many parts of the country. Urban primary healthcare has still not emerged as an active programme in many States. District and medical college hospitals suffer shortages of specialist doctors and support staff.
•The private sector ranges from advanced tertiary care hospitals in big cities to informal and often unqualified care providers in villages. During the pandemic, it could not assuredly provide affordable care or deliver vaccines in large parts of India. There was a disconnect between the various levels of care within the public system, and the private system operated in a separate universe. Most government-funded healthcare insurance programmes did not cover outpatient care. This patchwork quilt of a mixed healthcare system frayed fast when challenged by the surging second wave of the virus.
New scheme
•Alerted by the experience of the first wave of 2020, the government proposed in the Budget greater investment in the health system. The Fifteenth Finance Commission too recommended strengthening of urban and rural primary care, stronger surveillance systems and laboratory capacity as well as creation of critical care capacity at different levels of the health system. The Pradhan Mantri Ayushman Bharat Health Infrastructure Mission (ABHIM), announced recently, links these elements. It will support infrastructure development of 17,788 rural health and wellness centres (HWCs) in seven high-focus States and three north-eastern States. In addition, 11,044 urban HWCs will be established in close collaboration with Urban Local Bodies. The various measures of this scheme will extend primary healthcare services across India. Areas like hypertension, diabetes and mental health will be covered, in addition to existing services. Concomitantly, the network of centres will build a trained public health workforce that can perform routine public health functions while responding to a public health emergency.
•Support for 3,382 block public health units (BPHUs) in 11 high-focus States and establishment of integrated district public health laboratories in all 730 districts will strengthen capacity for information technology-enabled disease surveillance. To enhance the capabilities for microbial surveillance, a National Platform for One Health will be established. Four Regional National Institutes of Virology will be established. Laboratory capacity under the National Centre for Disease Control, the Indian Council of Medical Research and national research institutions will be strengthened. Fifteen bio-safety level III labs will augment the capacity for infectious disease control and bio-security.
•Many non-COVID-19 patients were denied treatment during the pandemic, as hospitals were crowded. Critical care hospital blocks, with 50-100 beds, will be established in 602 districts, to enable care for those with serious infectious diseases without disrupting other services. In non-pandemic situations, this capacity will be utilised for providing critical care for other disease conditions. For enhancing the level of disaster response readiness, 15 health emergency operation centres and two container-based mobile hospitals will be created.
Training public health professionals
•There is a need to train and deploy a larger and better skilled health workforce. Upgraded district hospitals offer the best opportunity for creating new training centres. Public health expertise will be needed for programme design, delivery, implementation and monitoring in many sectors that impact health. We must scale up institutional capacity for training public health professionals.
•To provide a continuum of care at different levels, HWCs will be linked with the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana, for all entitled beneficiaries. The hub-and-spoke model of block, district, regional and national public health laboratories will enable effective microbial surveillance. Private sector participation in service delivery may be invited by States, as per need and availability.
•ABHIM, if financed and implemented efficiently, can strengthen India’s health system by augmenting capacity in several areas and creating a framework for coordinated functioning at district, state and national levels. It can enable data-driven decentralised decision-making and people-partnered primary care at the block level while strengthening national connectivity for delivering universal healthcare. Many independently functioning programmes will have to work with a common purpose by leaping across boundaries of separate budget lines and reporting structures. That calls for a change of bureaucratic mindsets and a cultural shift in Centre-State relations. Perhaps the platforms for active citizen engagement can catalyse both.
📰 Pegasus before the security cart
The Court’s acknowledgement that the allegations of snooping have some weight go a long way
•The Supreme Court’s recent record on civil liberties has not been inspiring, especially where the cryptic phrase ‘national security’ is uttered. The rationale has been that the government is best placed to assess the impact on national security as it is the one overseeing all intelligence agencies and enforcement efforts. Hence, courts must allow considerable deference rather than coerce the government into sharing details that may compromise national security. Any critique of the court’s rationale for deferring to national security is hampered by the recent judgments marked by what they omit rather than what they state: the reasons. Hence, the Court’s order on October 27 forming a committee to probe the use of military grade spyware in India on Indian citizens was refreshing.
•It is telling that the order begins with a quote from George Orwell’s 1984. The allegations against the government were indeed Orwellian: at considerable expense, the government infringed the right to privacy of several leading journalists and politicians by deploying spyware on their phones to monitor all communications. There are even graver allegations that Pegasus was used to implant false documents and evidences on the devices of persons under surveillance. The government supposedly did so through a software named Pegasus whose developer, the NSO Group, purportedly sells it only to certain undisclosed governments and the end user of its products are “exclusively government intelligence and law enforcement agencies”.
No filing of an affidavit
•The Constitution mandates that any restriction on the right to privacy must be through a valid law, be necessary to meet a legitimate purpose and be proportionate, i.e., there is a proper balance to be achieved between that purpose and the harm caused by limiting the right. It is likely that the snooping, if any, through Pegasus may not be sanctioned by any law to begin with, else the government would have filed an affidavit to that effect as nudged by the apex court. Instead, the government has repeatedly relied on a Minister’s statement in Parliament denying the snooping allegations. Representations made in Parliament are generally protected by parliamentary privilege and consequences for false or misleading statements are rare. This is unlike an affidavit in court proceedings where such communication is punishable with imprisonment.
•The Supreme Court observed that there is a broad consensus between the government and the aggrieved petitioners that unauthorised surveillance/accessing of stored data from the devices of citizens for reasons other than nation’s security would be illegal, objectionable and a matter of concern. The only question that remained was whether such unauthorised surveillance and access of data had taken place in this case. To the surprise of no one, in the face of evidence of snooping produced by the writ petitioners themselves, the government resorted to ritualistic incantation of ‘national security’ to avoid providing answers in affidavit.
•Thankfully, the Supreme Court did not buy these omnibus assertions to desist from interference. It said national security cannot be the bugbear that the judiciary shies away from, by virtue of its mere mentioning. Rightly, the Court observed that in a democracy governed by the rule of law, indiscriminate spying on individuals cannot be allowed except with sufficient statutory safeguards grounded in legality, necessity and proportionality. Hence, where the government refuses to divulge the information sought, it is incumbent on the government to not only specifically plead the constitutional concern or statutory immunity but also justify the same in Court on affidavit.
•The Court’s acknowledgement that the allegations of snooping have some weight go a long way. Yet, the Committee’s conduct in investigating these allegations must go further. The investigation must be swift and its finding must be made public (redactions, if any, must be strictly necessary ones) to avoid ‘death by committee’. It is not unheard of that controversies on denial of civil rights are given a quiet burial when the public scrutiny wanes with time.
📰 Energy cooperation as the backbone of India-Russia ties
Russian companies have the potential to be long-term partners with India in aiding its energy transformation
•India has been at the forefront of the transformation of global energy and striving to diversify its trade relations. With its abundant energy sources and appetite for trade diversification, Russia could be an ultimate long-term partner. But the bilateral ties require more support from both government and corporate leaders to grasp its potential in this field.
•In September, at the 6th Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) in Russia’s Vladivostok, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a virtual address said, “India-Russia energy partnership can help bring stability to the global energy market.”
•Indian and Russian Energy Ministers announced that the countries’ companies have been pushing for greater cooperation in the oil and gas sector beyond the U.S.$32 billion already invested in joint projects. India’s Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas Hardeep Singh Puri referred to Russia as the largest investor in India’s energy sector.
Going green too
•The novel coronavirus pandemic is still far from over but an economic recovery has been underway. India, Asia’s third-largest economy, has expanded by more than 20% in the June quarter on a year-to-year basis and is expected to grow by around 9% by the end of 2021. The rate is expected to be higher than China’s 8.5%, assuming the effective suppression of COVID-19.
•The distinctive feature of this recovery is that it is advanced by the quest for energy transformation and environmental concerns. India has been increasingly leaning toward green transition since the recovery started, and its appetite has been growing.
•One of the examples of cooperation between the two countries in energy transformation is the joint venture between India’s Reliance Industries Ltd. and Russia’s Sibur, the country’s largest petrochemicals producer. Set up in Jamnagar, Gujarat, the venture now leads the first butyl and halogenated butyl rubber production facility in South Asia. The facility became operational in 2019 and achieved a total throughput within the first year, establishing itself as a significant supplier of butyl rubber in the Indian market previously wholly dependent on imports. A joint venture will produce up to 120 ktpa of butyl rubber, 60 ktpa of which could be further converted to halogenated butyl rubber to meet the growing demand from domestic tyre manufacturers.
Overcoming supply chain risk
•In an interview, Alexander Petrov, Sibur member of management board heading the Plastics, Elastomers and Organic Synthesis Division, said in an interview, “Reliance Sibur Elastomers is not only supplying most of the butyl rubber consumed in the country but is also exporting its products.” He added, “Sibur is bringing to India unique technology, which is not commercially available in the market and the most advanced in terms of [an] ecological footprint. The project will tremendously support the growth of India’s auto industry by securing uninterrupted critical raw material supply. This is of particular importance in the current pandemic, multiplying the risks of global supply chains disturbance.”
•Apart from accounting for most of the Indian butyl rubber market, Reliance Sibur Elastomers exports its products to Asia, Europe, the United States, Brazil and other countries. The venture is also promoting halogenated butyl rubber, which is a more premium product.
•The project is a clear manifestation of the “Make in India” and “Atmanirbhar Bharat” initiatives, representing a practical example of technology transfer from Russia to India.
Key factors
•India is one of the fastest-growing markets for butyl rubber and halogenated butyl rubber due to its rapidly expanding car manufacturing industry pushing for electric vehicles. Further to this, India is emerging as a critical refining hub in Asia to boost its petrochemical capacity. Currently, the country has an installed capacity of more than 249.36 mtpa, with local companies planning to significantly expand the capacity by investing more than U.S.$27 billion by 2021.
•Over the past years, India’s refineries have been expanding towards petrochemicals to capture additional value, the International Energy Agency wrote in the India Energy Outlook 2021 report in February. The agency estimates that the country’s ethylene production is set to grow by two-thirds over the period to 2030.
•Russia’s Gazprom and India’s ONGC Videsh Ltd. (OVL) and the Indian Oil Corporation signed separate memorandums of understanding at Vladivostok. Mr. Puri also met with Sibur’s Management Board Chairman Dmitry Konov at the event.
Renewable, nuclear energy
•In efforts to transition to green energy, India has recently achieved a significant milestone of completing the countrywide installation of 100 gigawatts of total installed renewable energy capacity, excluding large hydro. It now aims to hit 175 GW of renewable energy target by December 2022. If achieved, that would be close to half of India’s current total installed power capacity. Furthermore, according to the survey of the government in New Delhi, “additional investments in renewables up to the year 2022 would be about $80 billion”.
•Commitment to net zero emissions could positively impact the country’s growth trajectory. A recent Deloitte report has forecasted that India could gain U.S.$11 trillion in economic value over the next 50 years by limiting rising global temperatures and realising its potential to ‘export decarbonization’.
•However, unknowns of climate change and threats of a new pandemic suggest that the country should accelerate its energy transition. Russia, one of the key global players across the energy market, could emerge as an indispensable partner for such a transition. Notably, both countries have an extensive record of bilateral cooperation in the energy domain.
•Russian companies have been involved in the construction of six nuclear reactors in the Kudankulam nuclear power project at Tamil Nadu. Of these, unit 1 and unit 2 have been operating at total capacity. Unit 3 is still under construction. Previously, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed that Russia is ready to build a dozen reactors in India over the next 20 years. Furthermore, India and Russia secure the potential of designing a nuclear reactor specifically for developing countries, which is a promising area of cooperation.
•India’s nuclear power generation capacity of 6,780 MW may increase to 22,480 MW by 2031, contributing to the country’s efforts to turn to green energy.
•A few years ago, Rosneft invested U.S.$12.9 billion in India’s second-largest private oil refiner, Essar Oil, renamed Nayara Energy, marking it one of the most significant foreign investments in years.
•In September, almost all of Russia’s major energy companies were interested in projects in India, Russia’s Energy Minister Nikolai Shulginov said at the Vladivostok forum in September, adding that he sees prospects for energy cooperation in all areas.
•However, the current bilateral exchange rate needs to accelerate for India to grasp its potential from energy transformation.
Still coal-centric
•Despite significant progress, coal remains India’s most important source of electricity production, and it does not spell good news for the environment.
•To meet its growing energy demand and succeed in green transformation, India needs approximately U.S.$500 billion of investments in wind and solar infrastructure, grid expansion, and storage to reach the 450 GW capacity target by 2030. Therefore, more efforts are needed to expand cooperation with such partners as Russia.
📰 The need to move away from clientelism
Welfare initiatives embody civil rights, whereas freebies cultivate a patron-client syndrome
•A neoliberal economy encourages private capital and the market, while forcing the state to withdraw from welfare. The state is limited in taking concrete and constructive efforts to fulfil the aspirations of the people. Even as the poor perceive the state as an arbitrator of their well-being and a facilitator for their mobility in all spheres of life, today’s political parties resort to unsolicited freebies to attract them. The line between welfarism and populism has blurred.
•Welfare initiatives include a targeted Public Distribution System, providing social security for labourers, quality education, fair employment, affordable healthcare, decent housing, and protection from exploitation and violence. Freebies, on the other hand, are provided to attract voters to cast their vote in a particular election. They create limited private benefit for the receiver and do not contribute towards strengthening public goods/facilities.
A freebie culture
•The culture of freebies in Tamil Nadu was started during the 1967 Assembly elections. The then Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) chief C.N. Annadurai offered three measures of rice for ₹1. The practice of providing freebies was followed by subsequent Chief Ministers of both the DMK and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), who promised free TV sets, free laptops to students, free rides for women in buses, free gas cylinders and stoves, a goat and a cow for poor farmers, and so on.
•Initially, the government attempted to strengthen the redistribution of resources for all. After the 1990s, Dravidian parties moved towards clientelism, narrowly focussing on electoral gains. A study by Shroff, Kumar and Reich (2015) on the DMK’s health insurance scheme demonstrated that the main beneficiaries were the party’s core supporters and swing voters who could be influenced easily. Worse, after 2009, fewer people accessed public health care centres.
•In 2021, however, there was a qualitative difference in the manifesto of the DMK, which avoided most of the freebies except tablet devices to students studying in higher secondary schools and colleges. The manifesto reflected more of a programmatic policy intervention towards better public services than narrow private benefits in the form of freebies. But both the DMK and the AIADMK were silent on land distribution and enhancing budgetary allocation for maintenance of public infrastructure like schools, colleges, hostels and hospitals. The GSDP share for health was better under AIADMK rule compared to DMK rule, but both were below 1.5%. Tamil Nadu’s 2021-22 Budget shows that it has allocated around 13.3% of its total expenditure for education, which is lower than average allocation for education by all States, which is 15.8%.
Depoliticising the poor
•When Senior Counsel Arvind P. Datar submitted his arguments in S. Subramaniam Balaji v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2013), which challenged the freebies of both the DMK government in 2006 and AIADMK government in 2011, he emphasised that freebies violate the constitutional mandate of extending benefits for public purpose and instead create private benefits. He asserted that the literacy rate in Tamil Nadu was around 73% and there were 234 habitations across the State with no school access whatsoever, and distribution of free consumer goods to the people having ration cards cannot be justified as “public purpose”. Further, distributing laptops does not serve the purpose of increasing the quality of education. According to a report by ‘Anaivarukkum Kalvi Iyakkam’ (Sarva Siksha Abhiyan) in 2019, there were 3,003 government schools attended by less than 15 students. Due to lack of proper infrastructure facilities and specialised teachers, parents prefer to move their students to private schools. According to a report in this newspaper in 2019, more than 1,500 hostels for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) were in a dilapidated condition. Hence, freebies will not only depoliticise the poor and marginalised communities but also indirectly deny them their due share of state resources. Freebies drastically widen the gap between the rich and the poor. Populism encourages mediocre political critics and erases critical and rational thinking, which are important to raise pertinent questions to people in power.
•Compared to other States, Tamil Nadu has made impressive strides in many development indicators such as education, healthcare (mortality rate and life expectancy) and infrastructure facilities. However, it lags behind in other aspects. According to the Tamil Nadu State Agricultural Department’s publication, ‘Salient Statistics on Agriculture, 2019’, SCs, who constitute nearly 20% of Tamil Nadu’s population, accounted for 10% of agricultural landowners and possessed 7.8% of the farmland in the State. Even though the literacy rate is high in Tamil Nadu, according to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS)-4 (2015-16), only 32% of women aged 15-49 had completed 12 or more years of schooling, compared with 38% of men. The NFHS-4 showed sharp differences between SCs and Other Backward Classes in Tamil Nadu. The neonatal mortality was 12.3% for OBCs, but 17.4% for SCs. Infant mortality was 18.4% for OBCs but 23.6% for SCs. And under-five mortality was 24.8% for OBCs and 31% for SCs. The data reflect inequal access to public health infrastructure.
•According to a paper by the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, ‘Explaining the contractualisation of India’s workforce’ (2019), the share of contract workers in Tamil Nadu increased sharply from 8.3% in 2000-01 to 20.17% in 2013-14, which shows the withdrawal of the state in providing social security, and leaving the workforce at the mercy of neoliberal market forces.
A dichotomy
•Theoretically, there is a qualitative distinction between being subjects in an authoritarian regime and being citizens in a democratic polity. Unsolicited freebies cultivate a patron-client syndrome and encourage personality cults in a democratic polity. Besides, they affect the critical faculties of citizens, particularly the poor and the marginalised. Providing freebies is to treat people like subjects, whereas citizens are entitled to constitutional guarantees. Welfare initiatives are an embodiment of civil rights, whereas unsolicited freebies show benevolence at best and apathy at worst towards the poor by the ruling parties.
•There was a positive indication that the DMK is reconsidering unsolicited freebies/populism when it tabled a White Paper on the State’s Finances in the Assembly recently. Thereafter, there has been a lot of public discussion on this issue, which may lead to a reorientation of public policy in a healthy direction. Political parties and civil society should consider quality aspects in education, healthcare and employment and ensure fair distribution and redistribution of resources for the marginalised communities. We draw the public’s attention and debate to the dichotomy between welfare and unsolicited freebies or populism, so that the constitutional ideal of a secular, egalitarian and democratic India can be realised.
