📰 Days of misery over, PM Modi tells J&K youth
PM Narendra Modi inaugurates ₹20,000 crore worth development projects in Jammu aimed at reducing J&K’s travel and cultural distance from Delhi
•Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Sunday said Kashmiri youth will not be witness to miseries like the previous generations, as he inaugurated ₹20,000 crore worth development projects in Jammu aimed at "reducing Dilli Saey Doori (distance from Delhi)".
•Speaking on the National Panchayati Raj Day from Jammu's Samba district, Mr. Modi said, "I want to tell the youth of J&K to have faith in my words. You will not see the miseries witnessed by your parents and grandparents. I promise I will make it happen."
•He said the ' Ek Bharat Shreshtha Bharat' initiative in the past eight years was aimed at reducing distances, whether ' Dilli ki Doorian' or "cultural or linguistic distances", while drawing parallel to the sweetness and richness of Dogri language and culture.
•The Prime Minister had first used the phrase ' Dil ki aur Dilli say Doorian (distances of hearts and from Delhi)' during the all-party meeting with J&K regional parties last year in New Delhi to address the regional aspirations.
•He said the connectivity projects initiated across J&K and Ladakh will end the distances from Delhi and several new road projects between Srinagar and Delhi have already reduced the travel time by two hours. "The day is not far when the Kanyakumari Devi will be connected with the Mata Vaishno Devi by one road," he added.
•In the coming 25 years, Mr. Modi said, J&K will create a new era of development. "Investors from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) I met are excited to invest in J&K. From just ₹17,000 crore investment in the past 70 years, the figures have touched to ₹38,000 crores in just two years. Investors are coming here with an open mind," Mr. Modi said.
•He said J&K was also witnessing a boom in tourism. "Kashmir recorded more tourists in just a few months this year than the past few years. This place is booked till June-July," he added.
•The Prime Minister, who laid the foundation stone of 850 MW Ratle Power Project and 540 MW Kwar Hydro Project, said J&K will be an electricity surplus place soon. "Such projects will help J&K earn money and take J&K to a new height of development," he added. He said ₹20,000 crore connectivity and electricity related projects was a big figure for a small state like J&K. "This will speed up development. A large number of youths will get employment," he added.
•He described the decision to celebrate the National Panchayati Raj Day in J&K as "a reflection of a big change being witnessed here"
•"It's a proud moment that democracy has reached to the grassroots level in J&K, and from here I am addressing the elected representatives across the country. It was unfortunate that J&K could not adopt virtues of the Panchayat Act till recently. For the first time, three-tier elections from village to district level were held peacefully. Over 30,000 representatives are now running the village system on their own," Mr. Modi said.
•He expressed satisfaction over the 175 Central laws being implemented in J&K since the August 5, 2019 move to end J&K special constitutional position. "This has benefited the women of J&K, Dalit, Balmiki etc. They got 'azadi' (freedom) after 70 years of 'azadi' and were granted equal rights," Mr. Modi said.
How is the judgment relevant to the ‘anti-encroachment’ drive in Jahangirpuri?
•The story so far: A 37-year-old Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court which held that pavement dwellers are different from trespassers may become a game-changer in the Jahangirpuri case. The apex court ruled that pavement dwellers live on “filthy footpaths out of sheer helplessness” and not with the object of offending, insulting, intimidating or annoying anyone. They live and earn on footpaths because they have “small jobs to nurse in the city and there is nowhere else to live.”
What is the Olga Tellis judgment?
•The judgment, Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation, in 1985 by a five-judge Bench led by then Chief Justice of India Y.V. Chandrachud agrees that pavement dwellers do occupy public spaces unauthorised. However, the court maintained they should be given a chance to be heard and a reasonable opportunity to depart “before force is used to expel them.”
•The Supreme Court reasoned that eviction using unreasonable force, without giving them a chance to explain is unconstitutional. Pavement dwellers, too, have a right to life and dignity. The right to life included the right to livelihood. They earn a meagre livelihood by living and working on the footpaths. A welfare state and its authorities should not use its powers of eviction as a means to deprive pavement dwellers of their livelihood.
What led to the judgment?
•Sometime in 1981, the State of Maharashtra and the Bombay Municipal Corporation decided that pavement and slum dwellers in Bombay city should be evicted and “deported to their respective places of origin or places outside the city of Bombay.” Some demolitions were carried out before the case was brought to the Bombay High Court by pavement dwellers, residents of slums across the city, NGOs and journalists. While they conceded that they did not have “any fundamental right to put up huts on pavements or public roads”, the case came up before the Supreme Court on larger questions of law.
What were the questions discussed before the Supreme Court?
•One of the main questions was whether eviction of a pavement dweller would amount to depriving him/her of their livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Article mandates that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The Constitution Bench was also asked to determine if provisions in the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, allowing the removal of encroachments without prior notice, were arbitrary and unreasonable. The Supreme Court also decided to examine the question whether it was constitutionally impermissible to characterise pavement dwellers as trespassers.
What was the State government’s defence?
•The State government and the corporation countered that pavement dwellers should be estopped (estoppel is a judicial device whereby a court may prevent or “estop” a person from making assertions. Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim) from contending that the shacks constructed by them on the pavements cannot be demolished because of their right to livelihood. They cannot claim any fundamental right to encroach and put up huts on pavements or public roads over which the public has a ‘right of way.’
How did the Supreme Court rule?
•The Bench threw out the government’s argument of estoppel, saying “there can be no estoppel against the Constitution.” The court held that the right to life of pavement dwellers were at stake here. The right to livelihood was an “integral component” of the right to life. They can come to court to assert their right. “If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to live, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation… Any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established by law, can challenge the deprivation as offending the right to life,” the Constitution Bench observed.
•Again, on the second question whether provisions in law allowing statutory authorities to remove encroachments without prior notice was arbitrary, the court held that such powers are designed to operate as an “exception” and not the “general rule.” The procedure of eviction should lean in favour of procedural safeguards which follow the natural principles of justice like giving the other side an opportunity to be heard. The right to be heard gives affected persons an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process and also provides them with a chance to express themselves with dignity, the court had observed.
•Finally, the court emphatically objected to authorities treating pavement dwellers as mere trespassers. “They (pavement dwellers) manage to find a habitat in places which are mostly filthy or marshy, out of sheer helplessness. It is not as if they have a free choice to exercise as to whether to commit an encroachment and if so, where. The encroachment committed by these persons are involuntary acts in the sense that those acts are compelled by inevitable circumstances and are not guided by choice,” the Supreme Court had reasoned. Besides, the court noted, even trespassers should not be evicted by using force greater than what is reasonable and appropriate. What is more, the court had said, a trespasser “should be asked and given a reasonable opportunity to depart before force is used to expel him.”
📰 Towards a resolution of the Arunachal-Assam border dispute
What is the history behind the boundary issue between the two States? How do they plan to settle it?
•The story so far: Less than a month after the Union government gave the seal of approval to an agreement to partially resolve the disputed sectors on the Assam-Meghalaya border, Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu and his Assam counterpart Himanta Biswa Sarma decided to form district-level committees for settling their inter-state boundary disputes. This has set the ball rolling for the two States to address the issue on the basis of the “fifty-fifty” or “give-and-take” model Assam and Meghalaya followed for closure of the disputes in six of its 12 troublesome sectors.
Why does Arunachal Pradesh have a boundary dispute with Assam?
•Assam has had boundary disputes with all the north-eastern States that were carved out of it. While Nagaland became a State in 1963, Meghalaya first became an Autonomous State in 1970 and a full-fledged State in 1972. Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram were separated from Assam as Union Territories in 1972 and as States in 1987. None of the new States accepted the “constitutional boundary” that they said was dictated by the partisan administration of undivided Assam without consulting the tribal stakeholders. They also claimed that the disputed areas were traditionally under the control of tribal chieftains before Assam, post-India's independence, inherited the “imaginary boundaries” drawn during British rule. The issue with Arunachal Pradesh has more to do with a 1951 report prepared by a sub-committee headed by Assam’s first Chief Minister, Gopinath Bordoloi.
What is the genesis of the dispute?
•Arunachal Pradesh and Assam have disputes at about 1,200 points along their 804 km boundary. The disputes cropped up in the 1970s and intensified in the 1990s with frequent flare-ups along the border. However, the issue dates back to 1873 when the British government introduced the inner-line regulation vaguely separating the plains from the frontier hills that were later designated as the North-East Frontier Tracts in 1915. This area became the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA) in 1954, three years after a notification based on the 1951 report saw 3,648 sq. km of the “plain” area of Balipara and Sadiya foothills being transferred to the Darrang and Lakhimpur districts of Assam. Arunachal Pradesh has been celebrating its statehood on a grand scale with an eye on China since 1987, but what has been causing resentment is the inability of the people living in the transferred patches to join in the celebration. Leaders in Arunachal Pradesh claim the transfer was done arbitrarily without consulting its tribes who had customary rights over these lands. Their counterparts in Assam say the 1951 demarcation is constitutional and legal.
Did the two States try settling the boundary dispute earlier?
•There were several efforts to demarcate the boundary between Assam and NEFA/Arunachal Pradesh between 1971 and 1974. To end the stalemate, a high-powered tripartite committee involving the Centre and the two States was formed in April 1979 to delineate the boundary based on Survey of India maps. About 489 km of the inter-state boundary north of the Brahmaputra River was demarcated by 1984, but Arunachal Pradesh did not accept the recommendations and staked claim to much of the areas transferred in 1951. Assam objected and approached the Supreme Court in 1989, accusing Arunachal Pradesh of “encroachment”. The apex court appointed a local boundary commission in 2006 headed by one of its retired judges.
•In its September 2014 report, this commission recommended that Arunachal Pradesh should get back some of the areas transferred in 1951 besides advising both the States to find a middle path through discussions. This did not work out.
What are the chances of a solution emerging this time?
•The Assam-Meghalaya boundary agreement has raised hopes of the Assam-Arunachal boundary dispute being resolved, especially with the Centre egging the north-eastern States to end their territorial issues once and for all by August 15, 2022, when the country celebrates 75 years of independence. Moreover, there is a general belief that the region’s sister-States are in a better position to fast-track the resolution since they are ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party with the same dispensation at the Centre. Following the model adopted in the exercise to resolve the dispute with Meghalaya, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh have agreed to form district-level committees that will be tasked with undertaking joint surveys in the disputed sectors to find tangible solutions to the long-pending issue based on historical perspective, ethnicity, contiguity, people’s will and administrative convenience of both the States.
•The two States have decided to form 12 such committees involving the districts sharing the boundary. Assam has eight districts touching the boundary with Arunachal Pradesh, which has 12 such districts.
📰 After a hiatus, household consumer spending survey to resume in July
It helps arrive at estimates of poverty levels
•The All-India Household Consumer Expenditure Survey, usually conducted by the National Statistical Office (NSO) every five years, is set to resume this year after a prolonged break.
•India hasn’t had any official estimates on per capita household spending, used to arrive at estimates of poverty levels in different parts of the country and to review economic indicators like the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), since 2011–12. The government had junked the findings of the last Survey, conducted in 2017–18, citing “data quality” issues.
•“A decision has been taken to conduct the Survey from July and we have begun planning exercises to train the enumerators who will carry out the 2022–23 Survey on the ground,” an official aware of the development told The Hindu. Typically, the Survey is conducted between July and June and this year’s exercise is expected to be completed by June 2023.
•Estimates of household Monthly Per Capita Consumer Expenditure (MPCE) and the distribution of households and persons over different MPCE classes, based on the Survey, may only become available about a year after the field work is completed. The results will include separate data sets for rural and urban parts, and also splice spending patterns for each State and Union Territory, as well as different socio–economic groups.
•Starting mid–May, field enumerators have been asked to attend training programmes to ensure that interviews with households across urban and rural India are conducted sensitively and the intended data sought is gleaned effectively. The schedule lists out the items on which information is sought.
•In November 2019, the Statistics and Programme Implementation Ministry had dismissed reports that the 2017–18 Survey findings were being withheld due to adverse outcomes reflecting a decline in consumer spending.
•The Ministry had also said it was examining the feasibility of conducting the next Survey in 2020–2021 and 2021–22 after ”incorporating all data quality refinements in the survey process” recommended by an expert panel that vetted the ‘discrepancies’ in the 2017–18 results.
•The Survey could not be launched in the last two years due to the pandemic, the official said.
•“…There was a significant increase in the divergence in not only the levels in the consumption pattern but also the direction of the change when compared to the other administrative data sources like the actual production of goods and services,” the Ministry had noted about the previous Survey.
•There were also concerns about the “ability/sensitivity of the survey instrument to capture consumption of social services by households especially on health and education,” it had said.
•Fresh one-off surveys on consumer expenditure and employment and unemployment were commissioned over 2011–12 after the usually scheduled Surveys conducted in 2009–10 had coincided with a worldwide slowdown following the 2008 global financial crisis and a drought year in India.
•Though the fresh Surveys at the time were necessitated due to the unusual circumstances, the data from the 2009–10 Survey was released in the public domain, unlike the 2017–18 findings.
📰 Side-stepping irritants: On India-U.K. ties
India and the U.K. chose to keep the big picture in mind and work on long-term goals
•After two last-minute cancellations due to waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2021, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was in Delhi last week, committing to more cooperation with India on trade, defence, combating climate change and cyber security. But it was a visit surprisingly short on actual agreements. While an early harvest agreement on trade had to be shelved — the plan was to announce it by Easter (April) this year — Mr. Johnson and Prime Minister Narendra Modi said they have pushed a deadline to complete the full FTA by October-end or Deepavali, with a view to doubling bilateral trade by 2030. It is not clear whether the respective trade delegations are on track for the final agreement, but Mr. Johnson sounded optimistic, with India fast-tracking its FTAs with the UAE and Australia. Of concern to the U.K. is the lifting of Indian tariffs on Scotch whisky, which might make some headway, as India has accepted lower tariffs on Australian wine and the U.K. seems more flexible in increasing visas to Indian professionals. Both Prime Ministers discussed strengthening defence ties and cooperating strategically in the Indo-Pacific. The two leaders also discussed green technology transfers and international climate finance, although India has yet to commit in writing to the Nationally Determined Contributions that Mr. Modi had described at COP26 in Glasgow.
•Mr. Johnson did tread lightly on issues that the Modi government is sensitive about, such as Ukraine and human rights violations. He referred to India’s long-standing relationship with Russia, expressing understanding of India’s position, in stark contrast to the visit of his Foreign Minister two weeks ago. He brushed aside a question on human rights concerns in India, despite facing criticism over posing with a bulldozer while inaugurating a factory on the same day the Supreme Court of India was deliberating over the Government’s controversial new policy of using bulldozers to demolish shops and homes. A sub-group is to be set up to study “extremism” inside India and the U.K., which Mr. Johnson suggested would be used to monitor Khalistani groups (as New Delhi desires), but has a broader mandate to counter all groups and individuals “seeking to incite violent extremism and terrorism”. In return, New Delhi chose not to press the point too hard on why economic fugitives (Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi) have still not been extradited. However, while side-stepping irritants in the relationship can increase the prospects for agreements, it cannot replace the actual work and elbow-grease needed to give ties some momentum after years of stasis. Both New Delhi and London must ensure more concerted efforts to bring those agreements to a finale in the near future, to reach their ambitious goals under “Roadmap 2030” agreed to at the last summit in 2021.
📰 Demolishing the rule of law
The bulldozer itself has now become a symbol of brute state power and a revolting mascot to intimidate minority groups in the country
•In the early hours of April 21, a fleet of bulldozers accompanied by hundreds of policemen descended on Jahangirpuri in northwest Delhi to demolish buildings, petty shops, and the entrance gate of a mosque. Soon after the demolitions started, the Supreme Court in an urgent hearing ordered that “status quo” be maintained until further orders, but the demolition continued for over an hour after the order was passed.
•The demolition drive was initiated after the Delhi BJP chief Adesh Gupta wrote to North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) to demolish the “illegal constructions” of the rioters in Jahangirpuri. Communal violence had broken out in the area on April 16 when a Hanuman Jayanti Shobha Yatra, which did not have police permission, clashed with Muslims as it went alongside the mosque. This comes on the heels of other incidents, in Khargone in Madhya Pradesh and Khambhat in Gujarat, where processions during Ram Navami led to communal flare-ups which were followed by the state-directed demolition of homes of the alleged rioters.
•The actions of state and local authorities to bulldoze shops and homes in riot-hit Muslim neighbourhoods citing “illegal encroachment” raises major legal concerns. At one level, such actions show a blatant disregard for the due process of law and established judicial precedents regarding evictions. At another level, it conveys the cynical use of brute state power for collective punishment undermining the basic tenets of criminal law.
“Illegal encroachments”
•The statement of the NDMC that the demolition was a part of a drive against “illegal encroachments” seems to be a legal smokescreen for its more insidious action. The binary of legal and illegal settlements has very little meaning in Delhi, and much of urban India, since a majority of urban residents live on the margins of legality. According to the Delhi Economic Survey 2008-09, only about 24% of the city lived in “planned colonies” and the rest lived in informal or unplanned areas ranging from jhuggi jhopdi clusters to unauthorised colonies. The Draft Master Plan of Delhi, 2041 also acknowledges the informality that characterises Delhi when it states that such unplanned areas have “emerged as high density, mix-use hubs, providing affordable options for housing, micro, small and medium enterprises”.
•Within the web of such urban informality, people make claims over property through various legal, political, and documentary means. Since the 1970s, there have been many waves of regularisation of “unauthorised colonies” initiated by the state. In the run-up to the Delhi Assembly elections in 2020, the Union Government launched the PM-UDAY (Unauthorised Colonies in Delhi Awas Adhikar Yojana) scheme which confers property rights to residents of unauthorised colonies.
•Irrespective of the legal status of the settlement, no public authority can demolish buildings without giving the affected parties a chance to be heard. Neither the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 nor the Delhi Development Act, 1957 allows any authority to demolish a permanent building without serving advance notice. Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which allows the corporation to order the demolition of buildings, has a proviso which states that “no order of demolition shall be made” unless a notice is served to give the affected person “a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such order shall not be made”.
Protection against eviction
•Beyond the principles of natural justice, the judiciary has further strengthened the rights of residents against eviction. In Ajay Maken vs Union of India (2019), a case concerning the legality of the demolition of Shakur Basti, the Delhi High Court held that no authority shall carry out eviction without conducting a survey, consulting the population that it seeks to evict and providing adequate rehabilitation for those eligible. Invoking the idea of the “Right to the City” and the “Right to Adequate Housing” from international law, the court held that slum-dwellers possess the right to housing and should be protected from forced and unannounced eviction. The Delhi High Court had earlier in Sudama Singh vs Government of Delhi (2010), mandated that the state should comply with fair procedure before undertaking any eviction which got further crystalised in the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015.
•Drawing from judgments in South Africa, the Delhi High Court in Ajay Maken case held that any person who is to be evicted should have a right to “meaningful engagement” with relocation plans. In Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road, Berea Township vs City of Johannesburg, the Constitutional Court of South Africa had held that public authorities should engage meaningfully and in good faith with the affected groups and the Court facilitated an agreement that ensured affordable and safe accommodation for the occupiers. In the case of Ajay Maken too, the final judgment was given only after a Draft Protocol for rehabilitation was drawn up after consultative engagements with stakeholders, including the Shakur Basti residents. Given these precedents, before a public authority undertakes any action in Jahangirpuri, it should not only serve notice but also consult those that it seeks to evict.
Rule of the bulldozer state
•The demolition of homes and shops of alleged culprits of communal riots portends the establishment of a perilous bulldozer state that dispenses vengeful majoritarian justice. Before taking any punitive action, every accused has to be given a fair trial where both parties provide evidence, and the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed a crime. But under the new rule of the bulldozer state, even before any charges are framed, the executive rather than the judiciary arbitrarily imposes a form of collective punishment upon a whole neighbourhood. The state speaks with a forked tongue, claiming that the action is against illegal encroachment while communicating to their intended audience that it was a retributive action.
•The bulldozer itself has now become a symbol of brute state power and a revolting mascot to intimidate minorities. The demolition activities seem to be purposefully done under full media glare to convey the unbridled power of the bulldozer state. Worryingly, the new rule of the bulldozer state seems to have some level of public endorsement as the old rule of law takes a back seat. In the midst of such a majoritarian upsurge from the state and society, the rule of law cannot be saved purely through judicial intervention and would need broader political struggles that challenge India’s seemingly inexorable descent into tyranny.
