📰 Govt. allows cooperatives to sell products online
Centre to charge a transaction fee
•The Union Cabinet on Wednesday cleared a proposal allowing cooperatives to sell products on the Government-e-Marketplace (GeM) platform. The cooperatives may, however, be charged a transaction fee to cover the incremental costs, a government statement said.
•The GeM started in 2017 is a one-stop portal to facilitate online procurement of commonly used goods and services. The portal is open for all government buyers — Union and State Ministries, departments, public sector enterprises, autonomous institutions, local bodies and so on. Private buyers cannot buy on the platform but private people can sell products to government bodies through the portal.
•Union Cooperation Minister Amit Shah said in a tweet that the GeM would provide an opportunity to the cooperatives to sell products in a transparent manner. He said the move will benefit 27 crore people associated with 8.5 lakh cooperatives.
•He said the micro and medium small industries will get buyers and it will boost the prospects of “Vocal for local” and Atma Nirbhar Bharat.
Special purpose vehicle
•“The validated list of cooperatives to be onboarded on the GeM — for pilot as well as subsequent scale-up — will be decided by the Ministry of Cooperation in consultation with the GeM SPV [Special Purpose Vehicle]. This will ensure that technical capacity and logistics requirement of the GeM system are taken into account while deciding the pace of on boarding of Cooperative as buyers on the GeM,” a government statement said.
Why did Canada recently amend its gun control policies? What are the laws governing firearms in India?
•In 2020, the U.S. had witnessed 24,576 homicides, of which approximately 79%, or 19,384 incidents, involved the use of a firearm.
•The Second Amendment of the U.S. constitution, which states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”, is often attributed as the root cause of all firearm-related violence.
•Indian laws are particularly elaborate in dealing with sale and unlawful trade of weapons. It also enlists specific provisions on curtailing the use of licensed weapons to ensure social harmony.
•The story so far: The U.S. recently witnessed two episodes of mass shootings in a span of 11 days that killed more than 30 people including elementary school children. In 2020, it had witnessed 24,576 homicides, of which approximately 79%, or 19,384 incidents, involved the use of a firearm.
What do gun laws in the U.S. say?
•The Second Amendment of the U.S. constitution, which states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”, is often attributed as the root cause of all firearm-related violence. The U.S. Supreme Court previously held that the amendment protects the right to “keep and bear arms” for self-defence, while federal courts argue of a potential infringement if federal, state and local firearm regulations circumvent this right.
How are Arms regulated in Canada?
•Canada introduced legislation to amend its Firearms Act on Monday. It is proposing to institute a ‘national freeze’ on handguns — preventing sale, purchase, transfer and import of handguns into Canada. The legislation is of particular significance because handguns were used in 49% of all firearm-related homicides in 2020. Possessing a fully-automatic weapon, unless registered before 1978, is illegal in Canada. Gun licences are valid for five years and accorded to individuals at least 18 years of age upon completing the Canadian Firearms Safety Course. Vetting is undertaken to ensure that applicants do not have a history of violence, are suffering from mental illnesses or were previously barred from the process. The proposed legislation would revoke licences from holders deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. (by means of partner violence, gender-based violence, among others). It is mandatory for individuals and businesses to update records before transferring ownership of non-restricted items. In 2020, firearm-related homicides constituted 39% of all homicides in the country.
How do gun laws work in Japan?
•Acquiring a gun in Japan is particularly difficult — one has to present a series of documents, establish their ‘needs’, undertake an approximately month-long training on handling and safety, pass a scrutiny of criminal records and medical health, and then an exam to prove eligibility. Buying a weapon too requires a separate certification (from the dealer) mentioning the desired model.
•Applicants must be 18 years, not suffering from mental illnesses, not having a license revoked less than five years ago, not dependent on alcohol or narcotic substances, and have a fixed residence.
•Any violation is punishable with an imprisonment for a period up to three years, which could extend up to five years or more along with a fine of 10 million yen if done for “purpose of profit”. The Council on Foreign Relation states that “some analysts link Japan’s aversion to firearms with its demilitarisation in the aftermath of World War II. Others say that because the overall crime rate in the country is so low, most Japanese see no need for firearms”.
How is it in New Zealand?
•The turnaround in gun-law legislation in the country came in 2019 following the mass shootings that took place at two mosques in Christchurch.
•The legislation now requires firearms dealers to provide licence numbers of all its employees at a facility, including those not directly involved in handling any arms but having access to the premises.
•It is now also mandatory for all weaponry to have an identification number. In case a dealer receives an item without the same, they are required to have them stamped or engraved within 30 days of receipt. Applicants must be at least 16 years of age and undertake training in handling and storing firearms, and pass an exam. The vetting process requires the applicant to furnish contact details of known people to ascertain that she/he is a ‘fit and proper person’. In addition, if an applicant has resided overseas for six months or more in the past 10 years, she/he would have to provision a criminal history check from each country.
What about India?
•Gun licence applicants in India must be at least 21 years and not convicted of any offence involving violence, of ‘unsound mind’ or a threat to public safety and peace. Upon receiving an application, the licensing authority (i.e., the Home Ministry), asks the officer in-charge of the nearest police station to submit a report about the applicant after thorough vetting.
•The Arms Act amended in 2019 reduces the number of firearms that an individual can procure from three to two.
•Indian laws are particularly elaborate in dealing with sale and unlawful trade of weapons. It also enlists specific provisions on curtailing the use of licensed weapons to ensure social harmony. No entity is permitted to sell or transfer any firearm which does not bear the name of the maker, manufacturer’s number or any other visible or stamped identification mark. Any act of conversion (such as shortening the barrel of a firearm or converting an imitation firearm into a firearm) or unlawful import-export is punishable with an imprisonment term of seven years, which may extend to life imprisonment and be liable to monetary fines.
📰 The challenge of reforming death penalty sentencing
Lower courts must comply with the Supreme Court’s decision in ‘Manoj’ enabling an informed sentencing inquiry
•There has been an intense and persistent crisis in the fairness of administering the death penalty in India for many decades now that has been acknowledged in judgments of the Supreme Court of India, by former judges, lawyers, researchers, etc. At the heart of that crisis has been the concern that there is a pervasive arbitrariness in sentencing procedures that impose the death penalty, and a significant concern has been that barely any relevant information about the accused enters the courtroom during the sentencing phase. The Court’s recent judgment in Manoj and Ors. vs State of MP seeks to address this long ignored yet critical aspect of death penalty sentencing. This specific attempt in Manoj must be seen with the Court’s apparent discomfort over the last year with procedural unfairness in sentencing being carried out by the lower courts.
Individualised sentencing
•The constitutionality of the death penalty was upheld in 1980 in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab, which greatly emphasised ‘individualised sentencing’ and called upon courts to consider the ‘crime’ and the circumstances of the accused. However, since Bachan Singh there have been disagreements on which cases warrant the imposition of the death penalty and the nature of information about the accused relevant for sentencing. With a vast majority of prisoners being poor, quality legal representation has always been a concern. As a result, very little attempt is made to collect sentencing information, and very little is known about the accused while sentencing.
•Since September 2021, during Justice N.V. Ramana’s tenure as the Chief Justice of India, three Benches of the Supreme Court heard arguments in 13 death penalty appeals and delivered judgments in 10 of these cases, resulting in three acquittals in one case and commutations in the rest. A common thread running across these decisions is a deep and acute concern surrounding the procedural fairness on the imposition of the death penalty and the lack of adequate information about the accused.
•The Bench headed by Justice U.U. Lalit (and also comprising Justices Ravindra Bhat, Bela Trivedi and P.S. Narasimha) has been particularly concerned over the lack of information about the accused. Recognising the centrality of such information for a fair sentencing process, the Bench passed an order in Manoj in September 2021 calling for reports of the probation officers, prison officers and mental health professionals. In the final judgment delivered recently, the Supreme Court took important steps towards realising an ‘individualised sentencing enquiry’ as envisaged by the court in Bachan Singh 42 years ago.
Scope of mitigation
•Sentencing happens after an accused has been found guilty of the crime. Here, the circumstances of the accused are considered. This requires a broad-based inquiry as scientific theories no longer see the accused as individuals who, out of their free-will, make “bad choices” unhindered by their past or present circumstances. Contemporary understanding of criminogenic factors among scholars and researchers focuses on analysing past social histories, behaviours and life circumstances of the accused as human behaviour is a product of a complex interplay of personal and environmental factors.
•There have been important efforts by courts to bring forth such information. However, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manoj is significant for two reasons: first, it indicates a shift towards an evidence-based inquiry to sentencing that invites expert opinions and reports from a wide range of disciplines. Second, it expands the scope of mitigating factors by calling for reports that bring forth pre-offence details such as socio-economic status, education, family background and also post-offence details such as the conduct of the prisoner in prison. Mitigating factors pertain to life circumstances of an individual that can help determine punishment. Crucial to understanding the relevance of mitigating factors is connecting it to a framework that allows for contextualising it to the individual’s life choices and moral culpability, which is the essence of a just sentence.
Life-history approach
•The life-history approach provides one such framework that enables a view of life circumstances of an individual as interconnected to each other. Socio-economic circumstances, for instance, have been recognised as a mitigating factor by courts in various death penalty cases. What makes it compelling is when it is seen as interconnected to other factors, i.e. to see how poverty impacts a particular individual’s access to housing, education and health care, which subsequently impacts and shapes their life choices.
•It is a first for the Supreme Court to have laid down that information such as early family background that brings out any history of violence or neglect (also known as remote factors or experiences) is a relevant mitigating factor. Such negative experiences usually accumulate over time and therefore, the life-history approach is uniquely suited to such an inquiry. It provides insights into how early life circumstances shape an individual’s character and affect their actions as adults.
•While one hopes that the procedure adopted by the Supreme Court in nuancing sentencing in death penalty cases would be followed by lower courts, the real challenge would emerge with equipping courts to understand such rich information. The traditional checklist-based approach of presenting mitigation severely deviates from the requirements of individualised sentencing which is the most fundamental principle of the criminal justice system. Further, keeping in mind the introduction of non-legal expertise into courtrooms, courts will need to equip themselves to appreciate the evidence so presented. Questions on conflicting findings in reports and opinions presented to the court during sentencing would also need to be addressed keeping in mind existing evidentiary standards and judicial dicta, which suggests courts must not be constrained by confines of the evidence act in capital sentencing.
•The decision in Manoj is indeed a positive step towards a more meaningful and informed sentencing inquiry. However, further inquiry into the complex questions around sentencing will be inevitable to ensure procedural fairness for those under the sentence of death.
📰 A case for community-oriented health services
The recent global recognition for India’s ASHAs should be used as a chance to iron out the challenges in the programme
•India’s one million Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHA) volunteers have received arguably the biggest international recognition in form of the World Health Organization’s Global Health Leaders Awards 2022. The ASHAs were among the six awardees announced at the 75th World Health Assembly in Geneva. This World Health Organization (WHO) award is in recognition of the work done by ASHA volunteers during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as for serving as a link between communities and health systems.
•It is important to note that even before the COVID-19 pandemic, ASHAs have made extraordinary contributions towards enabling increased access to primary health-care services; i.e. maternal and child health including immunisation and treatment for hypertension, diabetes and tuberculosis, etc., for both rural and urban populations, with special focus on difficult-to-reach habitations. Over the years, ASHAs have played an outstanding role in making India polio free, increasing routine immunisation coverage; reducing maternal mortality; improving new-born survival and in greater access to treatment for common illnesses.
Genesis of the programme
•India launched the ASHA programme in 2005-06 as part of the National Rural Health Mission. Initially rolled out in rural areas, with the launch of the National Urban Health Mission in 2013, it was extended to urban settings as well. Each of these women-only volunteers work with a population of nearly 1,000 people in rural and 2,000 people in urban areas, with flexibility for local adjustments. The core of the ASHA programme has been an intention to build the capacity of community members in taking care of their own health and being partners in health services.
•The ASHA programme was inspired from the learnings from two past initiatives: one from the late 1970s and the other of the early 2000s. In 1975, a WHO monograph titled ‘Health by the people’ and then in 1978, an international conference on primary health care in Alma Ata (in the then USSR and now in Kazakhstan), gave emphasis for countries recruiting community health workers to strengthen primary health-care services that were participatory and people centric. Soon after, many countries launched community health worker programmes under different names. In India, they were called community health volunteers. However, within a few years of implementation, the community health volunteer scheme met many hurdles and evaluations which followed, indicating that a key reason for sub-optimal success was a failure of community health volunteers to make a community connect (in fact, people did not perceive them to be any different from existing government staff). The lack of political will was another factor behind scaling down, before the community health volunteer programme was forgotten.
•The biggest inspiration for designing the ASHA programme came from the Mitanin (meaning ‘a female friend’ in Chhattisgarhi) initiative of Chhattisgarh, which had started in May 2002. The Mitanin were/are all-female volunteers available for every 50 households and 250 people. Public health experts and civil society organisations who had first-hand experience in developing and designing the Mitanin programme were also involved in developing the ASHA programme.
•The ASHA programme was well thought through and deliberated with public health specialists and community-based organisations from the beginning. One, the ASHA selection involved key village stakeholders to ensure community ownership for the initiatives and forge a partnership. Two, ASHAs coming from the same village where they worked had an aim to ensure familiarity, better community connect and acceptance. Three, the idea of having activists in their name was to reflect that they were/are the community’s representative in the health system, and not the lowest-rung government functionary in the community (as was the perception with the erstwhile community health volunteer, a few decades ago). Four, calling them volunteers was partly to avoid a painfully slow process for government recruitment and to allow an opportunity to implement performance-based incentives in the hope that this approach would bring about some accountability. A practical aspect was that performance-based incentives were being rolled out for the first time in the health services on such a scale. The thinking was that it would be easier to implement performance-based incentives under a new programme and a new workforce rather than for the existing government staff.
•Since the launch of ASHA initiatives, many reviews and field assessments have documented successes and learnings. Public health experts have unusual consensus that ASHAs have become pivotal to nearly every health initiative at the community level and are integral to demand side interventions for health services in India.
A partnership, hurdles
•However, the programme has had its own set of challenges, which have been tackled proactively and in a timely manner, through sustained political will and by creating institutional mechanisms, i.e. community actions for health and ASHA mentoring groups. For example, when newly-appointed ASHAs struggled to find their way and coordinate things within villages and with the health system, their linkage with two existing health and nutrition system functionaries — Anganwadi workers (AWW) and Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) as well as with panchayat representatives and influential community members at the village level — was facilitated. This resulted in an all-women partnership, or A-A-A: ASHA, AWW and ANM, of three frontline functionaries at the village level, that worked together to facilitate health and nutrition service delivery to the community. Platforms such as village health, sanitation and nutrition committees were created, for coordination and service delivery. In the process, the trio became a well-recognised and respected face of primary health-care services to the community; their working together ensured greater internal accountability. In 2022, it is difficult to imagine how India would have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic had the ASHAs, AWWs and ANMs not toiled.
•Yet, there are ongoing challenges that need urgent resolution. Among the A-A-A, ASHAs are the only ones who do not have a fixed salary; they do not have opportunity for career progression. Though performance-based incentives are supplemented by a fixed amount in a few Indian States, the total payment continues to remain low and often delayed. These issues have resulted in dissatisfaction, regular agitations and protests by ASHAs in many States of India.
•The global recognition for ASHAs should be used as an opportunity to review the programme afresh, from a solution perspective. First, Indian States need to develop mechanisms for higher remuneration for ASHAs. The performance-based incentives should not be interpreted that ASHAs — no matter how much and how hard they work — need to be paid the lowest of all health functionaries. If they work more, the system should allow them to be paid more than even regular government staff.
•Second, it is time that in-built institutional mechanisms are created for capacity-building and avenues for career progression for ASHAs to move to other cadres such as ANM, public health nurse and community health officers are opened. A few Indian States have started such initiatives but these are smaller in scale and at nascent stages.
External review needed
•Third, extending the benefits of social sector services including health insurance (for ASHAs and their families) should be considered. The possibility of ASHAs automatically being entitled and having access to a broad range of social welfare schemes needs to be institutionalised.
•Fourth, while the ASHA programme has benefitted from many internal and regular reviews by the Government, an independent and external review of the programme needs to be given urgent and priority consideration.
•Fifth, there are arguments for the regularisation of many temporary posts in the National Health Mission and making ASHAs permanent government employees. Considering the extensive shortage of staff in the workforce at all levels, and more so in the primary health-care system in India, and an ongoing need for functions being undertaken by ASHAs, it is a policy option that is worth serious consideration. Alongside, there is a need to acknowledge that the specific functions at the village level, which ASHAs play, may not be ideally suited for a permanent position. However, finding a middle path would not be very difficult either.
•The WHO award for ASHA volunteers is a proud moment and also a recognition of every health functionary working for the poor and the underserved in India. It is an acknowledgement of the role and the relevance of people-centric primary health-care services. It is a reminder and an opportunity to further strengthen the ASHA programme for a stronger and community-oriented primary health-care system, which will prepare India for future epidemics and pandemics as well.
