📰 Central Government looking to use stubble as biofuel: Environment Minister
Stubble burning is often cited as a source of pollution in northern India
•The Union government was working on a plan to use stubble as a biofuel and manure as a part of an effort to deal with stubble burning that was often cited as a source of pollution in northern India, Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav told the Lok Sabha on Friday.
•The Minister, who is yet to make a detailed reply to a discussion on climate change, stated that the Centre had completely “decriminalised” stubble burning in the Air Quality Commission Act.
•Mr. Yadav was responding to Shiromani Akali Dal member Harsimrat Kaur Badal, who alleged that farmers from Punjab and Haryana were being “defamed” by the Delhi government for causing air pollution and criminal cases filed against them.
•Making a short intervention during a discussion on climate change in the Lower House, the Minister said the National Thermal Power Corporation had procured 3,000 tonnes of stubble to be used as bio-fuel and would study the results. A sum of Rs. 700 crore had been allocated get rid of stubble and about one lakh acres in Punjab and Haryana have used manure/compost from stubble, while Uttar Pradesh used six lakh acres.
•Taking a dig at Aam Admi Party government, Mr. Yadav claimed that Delhi used only 4,000 acres but put out big advertisements on utilising stubble as manure.
•The discussion, which was started on Wednesday and continued on Friday, also saw Opposition members questioning Prime Minister Narednra Modi’s announcement of a ‘Net Zero’ target of 2070 at the climate summit in Glasgow.
•Trinamool member Saugata Roy said, “Even a week before the COP 26, the Government of India did not show any inclination to announce ‘Net Zero’ target. Actually, the Environment Secretary had ruled it out in the media. What prompted and under what pressure the Prime Minister did a volte-face in Glasgow and announced ‘Net Zero’ target in 2070?”
Charge against developed nations
•N.K. Premachandran of the Revolutionary Socialist Party accused the developed nations of diluting their climate commitments over the past three decades. Referring to the concept first accepted at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, he said, “The principle of equity has been diluted and lost over the last 30 years. ‘Common but differentiated responsibility’ has become an insignificant part of the Glasgow declaration”. Even the concept of developed and developing countries had been changed at the COP 26. He accused the rich countries of hiding behind poor countries in tackling the challenges posed by climate change.
•National People’s Party MP from Meghalaya Agatha Sangma urged the Centre to reconsider the palm oil mission and go into a proper consultation before implementing it in the northeast and Andaman and Nicobar Islands. She said the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education had recommended that introducing palm oil should be avoided in areas that were rich in biodiversity and must be done after proper consultation.
•Tapir Gao of the BJP noted that there was need to bring in environment awareness from the school level.
•Ramesh Bidhuri, also of the BJP, lauded the Prime Minister's initiatives to popularise the use of energy-efficient LED bulbs as an alternative to traditional lighting solutions and offer LPG subsidies to reduce the dependence on firewood for cooking.
•National Conference member Hasnain Masoodi stressed that there was need to shift towards sustainable development so that nature was protected.
•Benny Behanan of the Congress observed that the attitude of both the States and the Centre was negative on climate change and now was the time to act to protect the environment.
The Prime Minister said different parts of the world have followed different paths of democratic development and there is much to learn from each other.
•Democracies should jointly deal with social media and crypto currencies, said Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his Official Intervention at the Summit for Democracy convened by U.S. President Joe Biden.
•Speaking on the occasion, Mr Modi said India is the largest democracy in the world which has 2,500-year-old democratic traditions and proposed to share India's democratic experience through digital solutions.
•“We must also jointly shape global norms for emerging technologies like social media and crypto-currencies, so that they are used to empower democracy, not to undermine it,” said Mr. Modi in his Official Intervention. The Summit for Democracy was convened by President Biden to strengthen democracy around the world.
•Opening the summit on Thursday, President Biden announced the establishment of the Presidential Initiative for Democratic Renewal that will provide foreign assistance initiatives.
•The initiative will be powered by $424.4 million and will be aimed to support free media, fight corruption, strengthen democratic reforms, for use of technology for democracy and for defence of free and fair elections.
•Mr Modi said democracy has taken various shapes across the world and that there is a need to work on the democratic practices and symptoms adding, “Different parts of the world have followed different paths of democratic development. There is much we can learn from each other. We all need to constantly improve our democratic practices and systems. And, we all need to continuously enhance inclusion, transparency, human dignity, responsive grievance redressal and decentralisation of power.”
•Mr Modi referred to the civilisational tradition of democracy in India citing the ancient city states under the Lichhavis and other people that flourished in India during the late Vedic and Buddhist period and continued to the early medieval period. He said democratic traditions had made ancient India the “most prosperous”.
•“Centuries of colonial rule could not suppress the democratic spirit of the Indian people. It again found full expression with India's independence and led to an unparalleled story in democratic nation building over the last 75 years,” said Mr Modi.
•Prime Minister Modi said India would be happy to share “expertise” in organising “free and fair elections” and in increasing “transparency in all areas of governance through innovative digital solutions”.
•“Democracy is not only of the people, by the people, for the people but also with the people, within the people,” said Mr Modi.
📰 Make the mental well-being of teachers a priority
It is a very important first step in addressing the mental health and well-being of children scarred by the pandemic
•It is now clear that COVID-19 caught us all by surprise. The school education sector in India too struggled during the novel coronavirus pandemic. While online learning for children has had its fair share of challenges, including learning loss, fatigue from online learning to mental stress, there is another group that faced severe adversity — a group that has not been adequately considered in the general discourse — our teachers, who too struggled with meaningful pedagogies embedded in digital platforms. The pandemic-induced conditions posed several challenges which largely remained unnoticed.
The two sides
•India has an estimated nine million teachers, but they are not a homogeneous group in India. There are extremes: those working in schools under the Union government with better qualifications, working conditions, salaries and systemic protection to those in low-fee private schools with abysmally low salaries, poor working conditions and no systemic protection. Those in medium range, urban private schools faced a new type of ‘bullying’ by being under constant ‘watch’ of parents who pointed out even the tiniest mistakes, including variety in pronunciation in online classes. In addition to this, under COVID-19 duty, their deployment in undertaking door-to-door COVID-19 survey, distributing immunity booster tablets, policing inter- and intra-district check-posts, managing queues outside fair price shops, keeping records in COVID-19 care facilities and, at times, disciplining queues outside liquor shops led them to a sense of ‘loss of identity’.
•This peculiar situation, juxtaposed with media reports suggesting that ‘teachers drew salary without any work’ led to much mental turmoil, a lowering of the self-image and self-respect. Teachers were also under constant pressure to submit records of efforts made to keep learning ‘alive’. These efforts could neither be fully verified nor could their effectiveness be gauged. One of the main pain-points for teachers during the pandemic was a total cut-off from contact with children during the initial months and during and after the second wave.
Not just a profession
•For many teachers, teaching is not just a profession but also the most rewarding work as interacting with young children and adolescents brings with it great pleasure and joy. Mental stress due to being cut-off from children fuelled by societal perception of the salary of teachers being a great burden led to some innovative responses from teachers to mitigate their own stress and pressure. For example, at Akole (Ahmednagar, Maharashtra), teachers started a COVID-19 care facility which is operational till date, with more than 650 patients cured and returning home. Such work, according to Bhausaheb Chaskar, a Zilla Parishad teacher and Convener of Active Teachers’ Forum Maharashtra, is helping teachers rebuild their image under assault by vested interests and is also bringing a lot of solace, mental peace and meaningfulness to the community of teachers.
•But, it is now increasingly clear that our children face a crisis in terms of their mental health and well-being. The silent pandemic of mental ill-health in adolescents and young people was brought to the fore globally by the pandemic. Teachers, as primary caregivers to children, influence the emotional environment of a classroom as well as the emotional and behavioural well-being of those in their care. The teacher’s ability to navigate this responsibility is significantly shaped by their own mental health and well-being.
Need for destigmatisation
•Teachers, especially those working in high poverty environments and with marginalised groups, face an inordinate amount of job stress, it is very important to recognise and validate their stress, bring it out and discuss it openly. School environments often embody the larger cultural milieu and discussing mental health and well-being might be stigmatised; recognising and addressing this stigma through a cogent set of policies at a systemic level will help schools create an environment where mental health can be discussed openly. Some steps that might be helpful include-
•Creating a space where teachers can talk about their daily stressors and their well-being with their peers in a supportive environment. Community of Practice of teachers and teacher unions can take this up as an agenda of priority.
•Including mental health, well-being and burnout management in teacher training programmes and refresher training will go a long way in prioritising mental health.
•Systemic investments in school mental health allow for a creation of an environment focused on well-being, addressed through clearly defined policies on anti-bullying, redress of harassment and grievances, creating a support system of psychosocial services that teachers can access.
•An objective recognition programme focused on the small achievements of teachers also goes a long way in building a culture focused on strengths.
•If we want to be a thinking, forward-looking, advanced society sensitive of challenges, a society in which children are safe, secure and protected with professionally well-trained teachers who know the ways of mitigating newer challenges (including mental health and the well-being of children), then there is no alternative to making the mental health of our educators a priority. It is a very important first step in addressing the mental health and well-being of our children. Our acknowledgement of systemic challenges created for teachers and our focus on teachers’ well-being and mental health would perhaps ensure a safe and secure ‘future of our future’.
•Kishore Darak works with the Education team of the Tata Trusts. He has been working in the school education sector for two decades with a focus on teacher development. Tasneem Raja has over 22 years of experience in the health-care sector and has worked on a range of issues including non-communicable diseases, infectious diseases and maternal and child health, in various parts of the country
📰 Don’t use state force on political opinion: SC
It says journalists should not be made to suffer for reporting what is public
•The Supreme Court in an order has said that “state force” should not be used to “browbeat a political opinion” and journalists should not be made to suffer the consequences of reporting on what is already in the public domain.
•The court observed that the political class across the country should introspect on the “debasement” in dialogue which was taking place.
•“State force should never be used to either browbeat a political opinion or journalists suffer the consequences of what is already in public domain,” a Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul stated in an order.
•The court hastened to add that “this does not take away the responsibility of journalists in how they report matters, more so in a ‘Twitter age’.”
•The court order said it could not “let go off the opportunity of saying something which is troubling society and the court. It is undoubtedly the debasement in the dialogue which is taking place which needs introspection from the political class across the country”.
Essence of democracy
•It noted, “In a country which prides itself on its diversity, there are bound to be different perceptions and opinions which would include political opinions. That is the very essence of a democracy.”
•The Bench stressed that political exchanges may get heated, but should not explode. “No doubt by the very nature of the job required to be performed by the political class, at times their exchanges may get heated. But it should not explode. We are sure difference in perceptions can be expressed in better language.” The order came after West Bengal informed the court that it had no objection to the quashing of FIRs registered on the basis of reports in ‘OpIndia’ portal.
•‘OpIndia’ editor Nupur Sharma and other petitioners had moved the court, saying the FIRs amounted to an abuse of law and suppression of Press freedom.
•Quashing the FIRs, the court said that what the petitioners had done was to “reproduce what the political class has stated against each other and which is already in public domain”.
•West Bengal’s stand to not proceed with the FIRs was “better late than never and should be a model for others to follow”.
📰 Goods and Services Tax as an unfinished agenda
Seen purely from a revenue point of view and as a fiscal policy tool, India’s GST is still on a rocky road
•GST, or Goods and Services Tax, an institutional tax innovation intensively marketed in many countries by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, was wrapped in a “one nation one tax” package, and was accepted by India on the midnight of July 1, 2017. Despite the alleged haste in its launching by the central government, there were adaptations to make it to suit the Indian context.
•Hailed as a landmark reform in India’s tax history, it was expected to improve tax-GDP ratio, end tax cascading, enhance efficiency, competitiveness, growth, and ensure lower prices. It was also projected as a watershed in India’s fiscal federalism. While the States have forgone a substantial part of their own tax revenue, they were in turn guaranteed a GST compensation assuring 14% growth in their GST revenue during the initial five years. Many exemptions, along with different tax rates, as against the single rate in many countries, have been accommodated to protect the interests of different stakeholders.
Unresolved issues
•Even after 50 months in existence, a number of relevant issues, both for policy and action, remain unresolved. A recently held international seminar on GST, organised by the Gulati Institute of Finance and Taxation that brought together experts from India and select countries (Malaysia, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico and Canada), was the venue for a suigeneris policy debate focusing on India’s GST experience. We, as participant observers, cherry-pick some of the observations that were made for reflection by policymakers and the wider public.
The base and pillars
•India’s GST architecture is built on the firm foundations of a GST Council and the GST Network (GSTN). The first is the key decision-making body, chaired by the Union Finance Minister with a Minister of State in charge of Finance and the Finance Ministers of States as members. This is envisaged as a due federal process to protect the interests of the States. GSTN generates high frequency data and subjects them to analytics for informed policy making. Built on this foundation, India’s GST paradigm stands on two key pillars: revenue neutrality and GST compensation for the States. Designed on the principle of destination-based consumption taxation, with seamless provision for input tax credit with CGST levied by the Centre, SGST by the States, UTGST by the Union Territories, and IGST levied on inter-State supply including imports, GST is applicable to all goods and services except alcohol for human consumption and five specified petroleum products with a common threshold exemption applicable to both CGST and SGST.
•The assured revenue neutrality remains a mirage and many States have experienced a declining tax-GDP ratio. Studies show that in the case of major 18 States, the ratio of own tax revenue to GDP has declined. While the share of the Centre in total GST increased by 6%, that of States put together lagged behind with only a 4.5% increase. Stark differences between the Revenue Neutral Rates (RNR) for the producing States and consumption State have been observed. States producing exempted food grains also lost out.
•Since the rates were lower under GST vis-à-vis the VAT regime, revenue neutrality was not adhered ab initio. The problems were compounded with massive evasion following the dismantling of check posts, and later on fake invoices, that grew by leaps and bounds. Exemptions and subventions complicated and worsened the situation. The South African experience illustrates how zero rating and large exemptions have defeated revenue goals. In Mexico, although the country relied more on income tax, with a standard rate of 16% they could raise over 4% of GDP from GST.
•Reviewing 30 years of the Canadian experience with GST, it is shown that GST could be improved by limiting zero rating, tax-exemptions and harmonising tax rates. The Brazilian experience indicates that transfers through social security or subsides tend to be more progressive than subventions or exemptions because reduced rates or zero rating do not usually get passed on to target groups or industries as happening in India. The resilience of the economy at the time of rolling out of GST is critical for its wider reception as the Australian experience shows. However, India was in the reverse gear given the downturn following demonetisation.
•GST in India was possible only because the States surrendered much of their constitutionally inherited indirect taxes. While the States collectively forewent 51.8% of their total tax revenue, the Centre surrendered only 28.8%. Yet, GST is shared equally between the Centre and States despite two expert committees recommended for a higher share for the States. Given the revenue neutrality failure and the host of other issues, many of the States are left with no option except to depend on GST compensation. While compensation legitimately has to coexist with GST, even the constitutionally guaranteed compensation for five years has not been implemented in letter and spirit, forcing the States to beg for their entitlement. This is not conducive to sustainable co-operative federalism.
IGST woes, other points
•Although IGST is a key source of revenue for many of the States, the clearing house mechanism and the process therein remains terra incognita. It was pointed out that GST is discriminatory to manufacturing States, indicating the need for a revenue sharing formula that duly incentivises exporting States by sharing IGST revenue among three parties instead of two. The Malaysian experience demonstrates the need for swift and transparent functioning of the input tax credit system through a flawless IT infrastructure. Malaysia ended up abandoning GST owing to these woes. We operate in an almost information vacuum especially with respect to IGST along with several glitches in the digital architecture. GSTN is now in the doldrums. It neither makes effective use of the massive and invaluable data being generated nor shares them to enable others to make use of them. Such practice in “data monopoly” was a fact of history in India’s statistical system and has to go sooner rather than later.
•Australia, having several similarities with India, in terms of Centre and the subnational units, and destination-based, multi-stage tax with input credit provisions, has not been revenue-buoyant. The GST revenue of Australia has fallen relative to GDP from 3.85% in 2003-04 to 3.28% in 2018-19. It is a matter for consideration whether such adventures such as widening exemptions and the replacing of income-tax by GST in the case of small and medium enterprises are advisable measures in the Indian context.
•GST should be seen purely from a revenue point of view and as a fiscal policy tool for efficiency, competitiveness and growth. Even by this standard, India’s GST is still on a rocky road, with several of the assumptions falling flat while expectations stand belied. Neither the States nor the consumers seem to have benefited since the rate reductions are not translated into prices due to profiteering and cascading. Despite many years of efforts in evolving an Indianised GST system and over 50 months of adjustments with over a thousand notifications, with accompanying uncertainties in the first year and the novel coronavirus pandemic and the lockdown still in the saddle, GST continues to be an unfinished agenda. But how far and how long?
