To Download Click Here.

Date:03-04-18

Identifying the policies that work best against child marriage: Empowerment of girls is the key

Bjorn Lomborg and Manorama Bakshi, [Bjorn Lomborg is President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, Manorama Bakshi is Senior Adviser to the India Consensus project]

Despite significant progress against child marriage, it remains a huge challenge. Last year 320 lakh girls under 18 were married according to UNICEF estimates. The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling criminalising sex with a minor even within marriage forms part of a solid legal framework. But global experience shows that laws alone are not enough to entirely change practices and mores. New economic analysis can help speed progress. The negative consequences of child marriage include making girls less healthy and less educated, as well as being linked to more domestic violence. The Centre and state governments have made progress by focusing on a range of interventions.

Now, the Tata Trusts and Copenhagen Consensus are adding new data to the conversation, with research papers commissioned for India Consensus that assess child marriage prevention policies for Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan. Every state faces many challenges but lacks resources to do everything. Spending wisely means helping more people, whether with better health, more education, a cleaner environment, or an economic boost.

For Andhra Pradesh Priorities and Rajasthan Priorities, hundreds of experts in each state helped identify promising ideas in dozens of policy areas. Specialist researchers are analyzing dozens of interventions. In its totality, this will point to policies that make the biggest difference. Within single areas like child marriage, the new data can powerfully show the way.

For Rajasthan Priorities Reena V Mithal, PhD, Managing Partner of Sankhya Capital starts with the well-established point that when girls drop out of school, they increase their risk of being child brides. According to some estimates, Rajasthan has among the highest incidence of young girls marrying. Providing a cash transfer of about Rs 8,000 each year to girls from age 14 contingent on them staying in school will result in a 19% increase in secondary enrollment, based on past studies. Including the increase in schooling costs and forgone opportunity for the girls to earn money, the cost over four years will run to Rs 950 crore.

Mithal quantifies the benefits: over four years, it will avert 9,620 child marriages. Girls are less likely to be victims of domestic violence, will receive better education and hence higher incomes over their lifetimes. Moreover, their children will be better fed and have better lives. In total, the benefits for Rajasthani women and their children will approach Rs 2,700 crore.

Therefore, every rupee spent will generate nearly three rupees in benefits to Rajasthan society. A number of studies link school dropout with menstrual issues and a lack of appropriate sanitation facilities. In this regard, the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan can be understood to be an integral part of the response to early marriage. For Rajasthan, Mithal looks at building new toilets, gender segregating toilets that exist, and repairing broken toilets. This would slightly increase school attendance and have health benefits, as well as delay marriages. In total, each rupee spent would generate just over four rupees of social good.

A third approach is to tackle the lack of safe transport to secondary school. Mithal finds that giving every girl starting in secondary school a bicycle would lead to about 12.5% more girls completing at least the first year. (Bicycles have been tested elsewhere, including in Andhra Pradesh under the Badikosta Bicycle Scheme). The annual cost would be around Rs 8,000 per participating girl over four years. That includes the extra costs of education, along with lost wages from girls who would have had a job earlier. The benefits – factoring in delaying nearly 8,200 early marriages and wage increases for the duration of the girls’ lives – add up to 4.5 times the costs.

Mithal has also carried out economic analysis on child marriage policies in Andhra Pradesh, where the context is different and therefore costs, benefits and impacts differ – as they will for every state in India. While it broadly shows what works, the concrete results will necessarily differ from state to state. What is clear, though, is that for every state in India, empowerment of girls can be an effective policy intervention to prevent child marriage.

Date:03-04-18

लोकतांत्रिक समाज में हिंसा के लिए कोई जगह नहीं है

हिंसा से न कभी कुछ हासिल हुआ है, न होगा।

संपादकीय

अनुसूचित जाति/ अनुसूचित जनजाति (अत्याचार निवारण) अधिनियम को कमजोर करने के सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले के विरुद्ध आयोजित भारत बंद उचित है लेकिन, उस दौरान होने वाली हिंसा एकदम अनुचित है। एक सभ्य और लोकतांत्रिक समाज में अपनी नाराजगी व्यक्त करने का तरीका भी शांतिपूर्ण होना चाहिए और सरकार को भी अपने नागरिकों को संभालने में कम से कम बल का प्रयोग करना चाहिए। लोकतंत्र में हिंसा के लिए कोई जगह नहीं है, क्योंकि यह न तो लाठी और बल से चलता है और न ही अनैतिक क्रियाकलापों से। लोकतंत्र की संचालन शक्ति सामाजिक और आर्थिक न्याय है और उसे अदालती स्तर पर ही नहीं बल्कि अन्य संस्थाओं के स्तर पर सुनिश्चित किया जाना चाहिए। एनडीए सरकार की ओर से अनुसूचित जाति और जनजाति समाज को सम्मान देने के राजनीतिक कदम के बावजूद अगर वह तबका नाराज है तो उसके कारणों की समीक्षा होनी चाहिए। पिछले चुनाव में उस समाज ने अपने सबसे ज्यादा जनप्रतिनिधि भाजपा के टिकट पर संसद भेजकर प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी और उनके संगठन में विश्वास भी व्यक्त किया था। इन सबके बावजूद गुजरात, उत्तर प्रदेश, बिहार और मध्यप्रदेश और देश के दूसरे राज्यों से भारत बंद में प्रकट दलित आदिवासी आक्रोश देखकर यही लगता है कि राज्य की विभिन्न संस्थाओं के साथ धार्मिक और जातिगत स्तर पर कट्‌टर होते समाज ने भी सामाजिक न्याय के अहसास को कमजोर किया है। मौजूदा आक्रोश की वजह सुप्रीम कोर्ट का निर्णय तो है ही, जिसमें नागरिक की स्वतंत्रता की रक्षा के लिए अत्याचार निरोधी कानून की अनिवार्य गिरफ्तारी की धारा को लगभग खारिज ही कर दिया गया है और राष्ट्रीय जनतांत्रिक गठबंधन के अनुसूचित जाति और जनजाति के सासंदों के दबाव के बाद सरकार ने उस पर न्यायालय में पुनर्विचार याचिका दायर कर दी है। इसके अलावा वे कारण भी हैं जिनके तहत आर्थिक विकास के नाम पर आदिवासियों के जल जंगल और जमीन की लूट बढ़ी है और जातिवाद के चलते दलितों पर अत्याचार की बर्बर घटनाएं जारी हैं। प्रधानमंत्री मोदी भले ही अपनी सफलता का सारा श्रेय बाबा साहेब आंबेडकर को देते हैं लेकिन, देश असमानता से ग्रस्त है। यह दूर तो होना चाहिए और शिकायतों के विरोध की लोकतांत्रिक पद्धतियां भी हैं। हिंसा से न कभी कुछ हासिल हुआ है, न होगा।

Date:02-04-18

जातिप्रथा की जड़ें

संपादकीय

गुजरात के भावनगर जिले में पिछले हफ्ते एक दलित युवक की हत्या सामान्य कानून-व्यवस्था का मामला नहीं है। यह हत्या बताती है कि भारतीय समाज में वर्ण या जातिप्रथा की जड़ें कितनी गहरी हैं। कई लोगों पर उच्च जाति का अहंकार उन्माद की हद तक चढ़ा होता है और उन्हें अत्याचार या अपराध करने में भी हिचक नहीं होती। भावनगर के उमराला तालुका के टिम्बी गांव में प्रदीप नाम के इक्कीस वर्षीय दलित युवक की हत्या सिर्फ इसलिए कर दी गई कि उसे घुड़सवारी का शौक था। उसके बार-बार जिद करने पर उसके किसान पिता ने कोई आठ महीने पहले उसे घोड़ा खरीद दिया था। वह उस पर सवारी करता, घूमता-फिरता। लेकिन घोर सामंती मिजाज के कुछ सवर्णों को यह सहन नहीं हुआ। प्रदीप और उसके परिवार को बार-बार धमकियां दी गर्इं। घोड़ा बेच डालने की सलाह दी गई, और इसे न मानने पर परिणाम भुगतने की चेतावनी। आखिरकार प्रदीप को घोड़ा रखने और घोड़े पर घूमने की कीमत अपनी जान देकर चुकानी पड़ी। यह स्तब्ध कर देने वाली घटना जरूर है, पर अपनी तरह की पहली या अकेली नहीं। ऐसे जाने कितने वाकये गिनाए जा सकते हैं, जो बताते हैं कि हमारी संवैधानिक और सामाजिक तस्वीर के बीच कितना लंबा फासला है।

संविधान में सबको बराबर के अधिकार दिए गए हैं। लेकिन कानून के समक्ष समानता के प्रावधान के बावजूद हम देखते हैं कि दलितों के उत्पीड़न और अपमान की घटनाएं रोज होती हैं। कभी किसी दलित दूल्हे को घोड़े से उतार देने की खबर आती है, तो कभी मिड-डे मील के समय दलित बच्चों को अलग बिठाए जाने, तो कभी किसी दलित सरपंच को तिरंगा न फहराने देने की। पिछले दिनों खबर आई कि प्रधानमंत्री के ‘परीक्षा पर चर्चा’ उद्बोधन को सुनने के लिए हिमाचल प्रदेश के एक स्कूल में दलित बच्चों को बाहर बिठाया गया। ज्यादा वक्त नहीं हुआ, जब गुजरात में कुछ दलितों पर राजपूतों जैसी मूंछ रखने के लिए हमले हुए थे। उससे पहले गुजरात का उना कांड पूरे देश में चर्चा का विषय बना था। आंकड़े बताते हैं कि गुजरात देश के उन राज्यों में है जहां दलितों पर अत्याचार की घटनाएं सबसे ज्यादा होती हैं। वर्ष 2016 के सरकारी आंकड़ों के मुताबिक गुजरात में दलितों पर अत्याचार की घटनाएं 32.5 फीसद दर्ज हुर्इं, जो कि राष्ट्रीय औसत 20.4 फीसद से बहुत ज्यादा था। यही हाल उत्तर प्रदेश, बिहार, मध्यप्रदेश, राजस्थान और आंध्र प्रदेश का भी है।

दूसरी तरफ दलितों पर अत्याचार के मामलों में दोषसिद्धि की दर काफी कम है। अनुसूचित जातियों और जनजातियों को उत्पीड़न से बचाने के लिए हालांकि विशेष कानून है, मगर पुलिस और प्रशासन के स्तर पर पीड़ित पक्ष के लिए अपेक्षित सहयोग पाना अमूमन मुश्किल ही रहता है। अकसर जांच के स्तर पर ही मामले को कमजोर कर दिया जाता है। यह कैसा भारत बन रहा है? क्या भारत अपनी इसी तस्वीर के बल पर दुनिया को अपनी महान सभ्यता और संस्कृति की सीख देगा? गुजरात की गिनती देश के अपेक्षया संपन्न राज्यों में होती है। लेकिन क्या विकास का मतलब फ्लाईओवर, बड़े बांध और एफडीआई वगैरह ही होता है? क्या सामाजिक समता और सामाजिक सौहार्द भी विकास की एक कसौटी नहीं होना चाहिए?

Date:02-04-18

Get to work

The government must take the initiative to end the impasse in the Lok Sabha

Editorial

Since March 16, when the Telugu Desam Party and YSR Congress gave notices for a motion of no-confidence against the Narendra Modi government, little transaction has taken place in the Lok Sabha. The Speaker, Sumitra Mahajan, has taken a firm stand that unless the House is in order she will not allow the motions to be discussed. Since the beginning of the budget session, the Opposition has been disrupting proceedings in Parliament over different issues. On Wednesday, the speaker adjourned proceedings for the eighth day since the notices were given. As this newspaper reported, in all the Lok Sabha has spent a mere 16 minutes on the no-trust motion notices. Until the motion, the first against the Modi government, is disposed of, the House is unlikely to take up other matters for debate. In short, the functioning of the Lok Sabha has been in limbo for over two weeks.This can’t continue.

The Speaker’s anger is understandable: The Opposition seems unwilling to listen to her pleas to uphold decorum in the House. The Congress, TDP, Telangana Rashtra Samiti and AIADMK have all turned the Lok Sabha into an arena of protest with MPs shouting slogans and raising placards. These stalling tactics make it tough for the chair to allow House business. What is glaring about this episode, however, is the government seems happy with the logjam. There is little effort on the part of the treasury benches to restore order in the House and facilitate the proceedings. Since the Union Budget has been passed and other important bills cleared already, the government seems keen to let the session pass without discussions on any matter, including the no-confidence motion. The Speaker’s inclination to adjourn the House at the slightest provocation has only contributed to the impasse. It is facile to expect the Opposition to conduct itself in the House strictly by book, especially since the ruling coalition has the advantage of numbers. As is their wont, the Opposition, especially the smaller, regional outfits, will try to attract the attention of the government, and the nation, with actions that may look spectacular. The task of the government is to reach out to the Opposition and persuade MPs to raise their concerns in accordance with the House rules. The BJP used to argue during the UPA rule that the onus is on the treasury benches to take the Opposition along in Parliament. Why must it not follow this very sensible logic while in office?

Debate and discussion are essential features of parliamentary democracy. Besides, each minute of running the House when Parliament is in session is estimated to cost the exchequer over Rs 2.5 lakh; the frequent adjournments mean a waste of public money running into crores of rupees. It is time the government took the initiative to end the stalemate in the Lok Sabha.

Date:02-04-18

A rude wake-up call

There must be some safeguards before a motion to impeach a judge is admitted in Parliament

K.V. Viswanathan is a Senior Advocate and a former Additional Solicitor General

The euphoria in some circles over a proposed resolution of impeachment of the Chief Justice of India is a matter of grave concern, for it brings to fore issues that directly impinge on the independence of the judiciary.

Reason for discomfort

Let the protagonists in the present drama be kept aside for the time being. The idea is not to comment on the bona fides, or the lack of them, in the proposed move. The problem is, when the political community (with all due respect to it) sets out to handle a matter pertaining to the judiciary, a sense of acute discomfort does descend.Two instances that immediately preceded the present one only reinforce the concerns: one concerning a judge from Gujarat for his observations in a judgment and the other from Andhra/Telangana where a communal twist was given to the case.

The question then is, should there be some safeguards before the motion, tabled by the requisite number of Members of Parliament, is admitted? A fearless judge is the bedrock of an independent judiciary, as much as an independent judiciary itself is the foundation on which the rule of law rests.

In the discharge of his official duty, a judge is obliged to decide on a variety of matters concerning the government and the political class. To name a few: public interest litigations involving disclosure norms for contesting candidates; the right of a chargesheeted person to contest elections; election petitions; electoral disqualifications, validity of government policies, criminal prosecutions of political leaders, including for owning assets disproportionate to their known sources of income; challenges to anti-defection law disqualifications; challenges to action for alleged breach of privilege motions.

Fixity of tenure and removal only by impeachment, no doubt, are guarantees for independence. But in a perception-driven world, the incalculable damage that even a mere admission of an impeachment motion can cause, and the consequential loss of reputation, that can never be redeemed, need to be primarily addressed.

Moreover , till the proceedings conclude, the functioning of the judge concerned comes under a cloud and even an ultimate exoneration cannot give him or her back the enormous loss of honour. This is quite apart from the incalculable damage the process itself causes to the institution of the judiciary. While a corrupt judge should be impeached without doubt, it must be ensured that the large body of independent judges is protected and they are not inhibited and shackled while going about their work with any possible threat of an impeachment looming large. Judges should be free of chilling effects.

Question of procedure

Article 124(4) of the Constitution and the provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, should be so interpreted that before admitting a motion of impeachment against a judge of a high court or the Supreme Court, the presiding officers in Parliament should be obliged to obtain the concurrence of the full court of the Supreme Court. This would be on the administrative side and if it involves a judge of the apex court, that judge would not participate in the sitting. To obviate any possibility of delay or the non-convening of full court meetings, it could be provided that in the absence of there being any response from the Supreme Court in four weeks’ time, it would be a deemed concurrence. Any admission of the motion without the concurrence would render the motion illegal and ab initio void.

There are several reasons why this interpretation would comport with our constitutional scheme. First, after the Second Judges case, today the power to appoint judges of the higher judiciary vests in the apex court. Removal being directly connected to appointment, it is only logical that the first filter in the process vest with the judiciary.

Second, the principle of independence of the judiciary on which the Second Judges Case was founded for the aspect of appointment should apply with full vigour to the initiation of the removal process. In a matter like this, which is so integral to the judiciary and to its independence, such a safeguard ought not to be seen as diluting the powers of the presiding officers of Parliament.

Third, on matters of criminal prosecution of a sitting judge, the Veeraswami case has already recognised a similar methodology of screening. Impeachment and prosecution are from the perspective of the institution on the same pedestal.

Fourth, the Judges (Inquiry) Act expressly provides that the presiding officers, before admitting a motion for impeachment, will consult such persons as they deem fit. It can be safely presumed that while the peer group will immediately concur to get rid of the black sheep from their midst, they will zealously safeguard a judge who is unfairly targeted.

In the judiciary’s court

There is a perception in the community that attempts are being made to considerably weaken the judiciary. There is also a feeling, that enough is not being done by the judiciary to check that attempt. It is time for the judiciary to assert itself. The absolute disregard shown to collegium recommendations by the executive, notwithstanding the categoric pronouncement in the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) case, is shocking. But what is bewildering is the total inaction from the judicial side. Vacancies are mounting and pendency of cases is reaching alarming proportions. The faith of the people in the judiciary should not be lost. It is time that by a judicial order the Memorandum of Procedure (MOP) is set out and a mandamus issued to government to follow the same and clear pending appointments in a time-bound manner. If the judiciary is perceived as weak, more and more impeachment proposals would do the rounds. The message should go from the top. That will also rejuvenate the high courts and give the judges their much-needed confidence.

In the eyes of the international community, the executive government also will be shown in a bad light if the judiciary in the country is not independent and strong. Business will not be forthcoming. Tourism will suffer. There will be fear and insecurity. The rule of law will be a far cry. All this will deliver a serious blow to the economy. After all, there is no reason for any clean government to fear a judiciary that is strong, fearless and independent.