03-11-2016 (Important News Clippings)
To Download Click Here
Date: 03-11-16
तेज हो न्याय
मंगलवार को केंद्र सरकार ने अपनी ही कथित आपत्तियों के परे जाकर पांच सेवारत न्यायविदों को दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय के न्यायाधीश पद पर नियुक्त कर दिया। लेकिन यह स्पष्टï है कि केंद्र सरकार और उच्चतम न्यायालय अभी भी न्यायिक नियुक्तियों के मामले में किसी समझौते पर नहीं पहुंच सके हैं। मुख्य न्यायाधीश टी एस ठाकुर की अध्यक्षता वाले पीठ ने एक बार फिर चिंता जताई है कि सरकार न्यायपालिका की रिक्तियों के मामले में धीमी कार्रवाई कर रही है। पीठ ने पूछा कि क्या सरकार ‘संस्थान की कार्यप्रणाली को ठप’ करना चाहती है? सरकार ने जवाब में दावा किया कि नियुक्तियों की दर में धीमापन नहीं आया है और नए पद सृजित किए गए हैं। न्यायाधीशों की चिंता यह है कि सरकार नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया धीमी कर रही है ताकि उसे नियुक्ति के तरीके को लेकर न्यायपालिका के साथ चल रहे टकराव में बढ़त मिल सके।
Educating the citizen
The demand that political parties function democratically must come from the people
There seem to be three types of political parties in India — family-run, coterie-run and individual-run. The labels are self-explanatory and there seems to be no political party that falls outside this classification. All of them seem to be blissfully innocent of the fact that political parties are, at their root, supposed to be instruments of democracy. And instruments of democracy cannot be undemocratic. This issue was addressed in a column in this paper five years ago (‘Can undemocratic parties serve a democratic nation?’ IE, September 16, 2011).
What the 2011 piece did not point out was that this issue has engaged the attention of the Law Commission of India as far back as 1999. The commission’s comments in para 3.1.2.1 of its 170th report is worth reproducing in full: “On the parity of the above reasoning, it must be said that if democracy and accountability constitute the core of our constitutional system, the same concepts must also apply to and bind the political parties which are integral to parliamentary democracy. It is the political parties that form the government, man the Parliament and run the governance of the country. It is therefore necessary to introduce internal democracy, financial transparency and accountability in the working of the political parties. A political party which does not respect democratic principles in its internal working cannot be expected to respect those principles in the governance of the country. It cannot be a dictatorship internally and democratic in its functioning outside.”
It should not matter whether the party is family-run, coterie-run and individual-run, so long as it has at least a semblance of democracy in its internal functioning. Political parties will not become internally democratic by exhortations of political scientists and political commentators. For this, they need, what a former judge of the US Supreme Court, Justice David Souter, referred to as “civic knowledge” in a TV discussion. Souter was commenting four years ago and his remarks are being replayed in the US now as the country’s electorate faces what is perceived by many to be a difficult choice. Souter recollected the remarks of Benjamin Franklin, often referred to as “one of the founding fathers” of the US. When asked what kind of a nation would the country’s constitution create, Franklin replied, “a republic, if you can keep it.” Souter went on to say, “democracy cannot survive civic ignorance.”
Therefore, a necessary condition for democracy to survive and to make political parties internally democratic is pressure from citizens. For this, what is needed is “education for citizenship”. So, whether “an institute of management education” starts “a course on managing family-based political parties” or not, it is necessary that institutions of education pay attention to ensuring that their students acquire some knowledge of what it takes to be a responsible citizen.Democracy in the country will survive only if political parties are democratic in their internal functioning. Political parties will become democratic in their internal functioning only if citizens demand that. Citizens will demand that only if they have what Justice Souter called “civic knowledge” or “education for citizenship”. So, while one can intervene at every level, the most basic interventions are required at the level of schools and colleges. This may appear to be a long haul but there really are no shortcuts.
Jagdeep S. Chhokar
The writer is former professor, dean, and director in-charge of IIM, Ahmedabad. Views are personal.
Date: 02-11-16
The overrated urban spinoff
A recent report prepared for the UN points out that, over the last two decades, India’s urban population increased from 217 million to 377 million, and this is expected to reach 600 million by 2031 — 40 per cent of the country’s population. The current pattern of urbanisation is largely taking place on the fringe of cities, much of it is unplanned and outside the purview of city codes and bylaws. It is already imposing high costs. The gap in urban infrastructure investment over the next 20 years is estimated at $827 billion; two-thirds of this is required for urban roads and traffic support. So the case for higher investment in urban development is compelling. The key question, however, is whether a substantial hike in urban infrastructure investment would imply a substantially lower increase in rural investment. It is difficult to offer a precise answer but something can be said about the growth and poverty effects of rural transformation relative to those of urban development.
A recent IMF study measured the impact of urbanisation on rural poverty in India using the NSS data over 1983-1984, 1993-1994 and 1999-2000. It distinguished between the location and the economic linkage effects. The former entails reduction in rural poverty due to the change in residence — from rural areas to cities. The latter focuses on the impact of growth of the urban population on the rural poverty rate. There are several channels through which urban population growth affects poverty in surrounding areas: Consumption linkages, rural non-agricultural employment, remittances, rural land/labour ratios, rural land prices and consumer prices.
Urbanisation has a significant poverty-reducing effect on the surrounding rural areas. Over the entire period in question, poverty reduced between 13 per cent and 25 per cent as a result of urbanisation. But this reduction is not as substantial when compared to the reduction in rural poverty brought about by state-led rural bank branch expansion, which explains approximately half of the overall reduction of rural poverty between 1961 and 2000. A major flaw of the IMF study is that it examines the role of urbanisation in isolation of rural transformation — especially emergence of high value chains and more remunerative opportunities for labourers, smallholders and those self-employed in non-agricultural activities. Just like urban transformation, rural transformation has a multiplier effect on poverty reduction. As agriculture modernises, for example, it reduces rural poverty and overall poverty through greater demand for chemical fertilisers, pesticides, machine services, processed seeds or fuels, which promote non-agricultural production. Besides, higher incomes in rural areas promote demand for processed foods produced mainly in urban areas and generate employment. Decrease in food prices due to agricultural growth results in better food security and overall poverty reduction in both rural and urban areas, while the reduction of food prices lowers the real product wage in the non-agricultural sector, thereby raising profitability and investment in that sector. So, without comparison of direct and multiplier effects of rural transformation and urbanisation, an isolated analysis of either sector is likely to be misleading.
Our research encompasses this broader perspective. We examine overall growth and poverty effects of both agriculture and non-agriculture, taking into account the linkages between them. As the non-agricultural sector includes both rural non-agricultural and urban activities, we disaggregate the rural areas into agriculture and non-agriculture sub-sectors, and the urban areas into small towns, secondary towns and metropolitan cities in order to compare their effects on poverty.
As a country grows and shifts from the low income to the middle income category, the nature of agriculture typically changes from subsistence-oriented farming to more commercialised and market farming. It then has a closer linkage with the non-agricultural sector. Our analysis shows that spillovers from agricultural growth rate are twice as large as from non-agricultural growth. Besides, agricultural growth has a much stronger poverty-reducing effect than non-agricultural growth.
We also examined the separate effects of agriculture, rural non-agriculture and metropolitan cities on poverty, relative to secondary towns. Using a decomposition that allows sectoral population shares as proxies for their contributions to poverty reduction, used in a recent World Bank study, we found that the (proportionate) poverty reduction is largest for agriculture. Contrary to the World Bank’s conclusion, we found that agriculture’s contribution to poverty reduction is five times more than that of metropolitan cities.
Although a definitive conclusion about public investment priorities will depend on the pattern of rural transformation and urbanisation, there is a strong case for rural transformation through easier access to new technology, credit and markets. Strengthening of extension services, rural infrastructure and skill formation will not only raise productivity and living standards but also curb rural-urban migration. Our analysis shows that creating more remunerative opportunities in rural areas deserves greater emphasis.
Raghav Gaiha
Gaiha is visiting scientist, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston; and honorary professorial fellow at Global Development Institute, University of Manchester, England. Katsushi. S. Imai, associate professor, economics, University of Manchester, has co-authored this article
Why diversity needs secularism
The non-inclusion of the word ‘secular’ in the original Constitution cannot be a reason to recommend its removal now
The expansion and consolidation of the Hindu Right’s political power has raised legitimate concerns about the future
The most significant moment of this departure in the politics of the Hindu Right was during the 2014 election campaign. For the first time in Indian history, Narendra Modi, as a prime ministerial candidate, unleashed the most sustained attack on the idea of secularism in meeting after meeting. At a meeting in Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh, on March 26, 2014, he reminded people how the idea of secularism has kept Muslims poor. On this issue, he has remained rather consistent even after becoming Prime Minister, although he has vacillated on many other issues. At a party in Berlin on April 14, 2015, hosted by the Indian Ambassador, he spoke of how Sanskrit has suffered owing to India’s so-called “secular fever”.
There are also occasions when Mr. Modi has made statements on diversity being India’s strength without recognising that diversity as a political project can only be effective with secularism as a working foundational value. This is a tragic flaw in the Hindu Right’s understanding of the notion of diversity. Inaugurating the debate on intolerance in Parliament on November 26, 2015, Home Minister Rajnath Singh explained how this idea of secularism has been misused and how the word is the most abused one. According to the Hindu Right, there are perhaps some benefits of secularism, but they are trivial and could be easily found in the ideology of Hindutva, apparently noble, kind, and all-embracing. It seems to suggest thereby that the problem is not with the idea of Hindutva, but with the misconceptions of secularists about this otherwise noble idea.
The Hindu Right is seemingly keen on reminding everyone that India’s founding fathers including B.R. Ambedkar did not consider it necessary to introduce the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble of the Constitution. It was inserted as part of the 42nd amendment during Indira Gandhi’s Emergency rule. In his speech, Mr. Singh specifically mentioned Ambedkar’s reluctance to introduce the word. The fact is that Ambedkar made two interventions in the debate on Professor K.T. Shah’s resolution on this issue, and chose to remain silent on the secularism question although he firmly opposed the entry of the word ‘socialism’ on the ground that future generations should have the freedom to choose their economic path. Ambedkar was not a convinced socialist at all. But analysis of his writings on minority rights, Muslims, Pakistan etc. when seen in the context of his pronouncements like “I was born Hindu, but won’t die as one” or “Hinduism is not a religion” echoes a particular brand of secularism, very distinct from the Nehruvian or the Gandhian one. His secularism is about human dignity, and his idea of secular political culture is to contribute to the emancipation of human beings from all kinds of man-made suffering inflicted in the name of religion. Had he been alive today, he would have been, no doubt, the most fierce and erudite critic of Hindutva politics.
An omission yet unexplained
These two words — secular and socialist — entered the Constitution when most leaders of the Opposition were under arrest for their resistance to the Emergency. Since these words were retained during the 44nd amendment under the Janata Party regime, it is suggestive of a broad consensus among India’s political leadership for their insertion in the Constitution.
Why did our founding fathers not include them in the Constitution in the first place? Scholars have tried to explain this. In his presidential address to the Indian History Congress, Malda, in 2015, historian Sabyasachi Bhattacharya argued that it was Jawaharlal Nehru’s and Ambedkar’s larger belief in the values of equality and justice that encouraged them not to introduce these words. One wonders how one could speak of equality and justice in a multi-religious society without secularism.
Moreover, it would be almost impossible to argue that Indira Gandhi was the greater defender of Indian minorities or a bigger patriot compared to Nehru or Ambedkar. There is little knowledge about the circumstances in which she chose to introduce these words. Did she do it on her own or was she advised by somebody? In a recent memoir, President Pranab Mukherjee tells us that it was on the advice of Siddhartha Sankar Ray that she introduced the Emergency. Moreover, Indira Gandhi was not just one of the past Prime Ministers of India like, say, H.D. Deve Gowda; she was also Nehru’s daughter. Was she privy to any particular discussion with Nehru about the reason why he was not keen on pressing for the insertion of these words? We do not have definite answers to these questions as yet.
Others like diplomat-turned-politician Pavan K. Varma argue that the threat to India’s secular fabric from the Hindu Right was far greater during the 1970s, which is why Indira Gandhi considered it necessary to introduce these words. Even socialist leader Jayaprakash Narayan was concerned with the growing influence of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh on the Morarji Desai government, for which he wrote a specific letter expressing his concerns about its Hindutva project. As things stand now, there is no convincing answer as to why the word “secular” was left out in the first place, and that gives the Hindu Right a convenient handle to twist the debate in its favour in their advocacy for its removal.
Shaikh Mujibur Rehman is the editor of ‘Communalism in Postcolonial India: Changing Contours’ (Routledge, 2016). He teaches at Jamia Millia Central University, New Delhi.
कारोबार की राजनीति
भारत का औद्योगिक भूगोल हमें चौंकाता है। देश के कुछ इलाके, कुछ राज्य तो ऐसे हैं, जहां एक के बाद एक नए उद्योग लगते हैं, लोगों को रोजगार मिलता है और उनकी तरक्की के आंकड़े हमें चौंकाते हैं। इसके विपरीत वे राज्य हैं, जहां औद्योगिक निवेश बहुत कम होता है और साल-दर-साल हम उन्हें पिछड़े राज्यों में गिनते हैं। विश्व बैंक ने कारोबार में आसानी के लिहाज से देश के राज्यों की जो रैंकिंग प्रकाशित की है, वह इस भूगोल का सही आकलन पेश करती है। इससे हम उन कारणों को भी आसानी से समझ सकते हैं, जिनकी वजह से कोई राज्य समृद्ध हो जाता है और कोई पीछे रह जाता है। इस रैंकिंग का पैमाना बहुत सीधा है।विश्व बैंक हर कुछ समय के बाद यह सुझाता है कि राज्यों को अपने यहां कौन-कौन से आर्थिक सुधार करने चाहिए। बाद में राज्यों द्वारा किए गए सुधारों के आधार पर उनकी रैंकिंग तैयार की जाती है। यह मामला सिर्फ सुधार का नहीं है। निवेशक जब कोई बड़ी पूंजी लगाने को तैयार होता है, तो उसे यह तय करना होता है कि कौन सी जगह निवेश के लिहाज से सबसे उपयुक्त है। ऐसे में, इस तरह की रैंकिंग उसके बहुत काम आती है। जाहिर है, इस रैंकिंग में जो सबसे ऊपर के राज्य हैं, वहां निवेश होने की सबसे ज्यादा संभावना रहती है।
इस बार की रैंकिंग में आंध्र प्रदेश और तेलंगाना सबसे ऊपर हैं। नंबर एक के लिए उनमें टाई हो गया है, जबकि पिछले साल तक नंबर एक पर रहने वाला गुजरात इस बार नंबर तीन पर पहुंच गया है। आंध्र प्रदेश और तेलंगाना ने नए उद्योगों के लिए जो व्यवस्था की है, वे महत्वपूर्ण तो हैं ही, साथ ही वे ऐसी हैं कि दूसरे राज्य उनसे सबक ले सकते हैं। मसलन, तेलंगाना में नया उद्योग लगाने की तमाम तरह की इजाजत लेने के लिए किसी उद्योगपति को सरकारी अधिकारियों से मिलने की जरूरत नहीं है, ये सारा काम ऑनलाइन अपने आप हो जाता है। अन्य राज्यों में उद्योगपतियों को अब भी मंत्रियों और अधिकारियों के चक्कर काटने पड़ते हैं।
तेलंगाना ने तकनीक का सही इस्तेमाल करते हुए नौकरशाही की सारी बाधाओं को एक झटके में खत्म कर दिया है। इस राज्य ने अनुमति देने की समय-सीमा तय कर दी है। यहां 200 करोड़ रुपये से कम निवेश की परियोजनाओं को 21 दिन में अनुमति देने का प्रावधान है, जबकि इससे ज्यादा की परियोजना को 15 दिन में ही अनुमति देनी होती है। ऐसे महत्वपूर्ण कदमों से ही वह एक साल के भीतर 13वीं पायदान से पहली पायदान पर पहुंच गया है। क्या बाकी राज्य इससे सबक लेंगे? खासकर उत्तर प्रदेश और बिहार जैसे राज्य, जो इस रैंकिंग में बहुत पीछे रहते आए हैं। ऐसे मौकों पर अक्सर वे ऐतिहासिक कारण गिनाए जाते हैं, जिनसे ये राज्य पीछे रह गए।
दिलचस्प बात यह है कि बिहार से अलग हुआ झारखंड और उत्तर प्रदेश से अलग हुआ उत्तराखंड पहले दस राज्यों में स्थान बनाने में कामयाब रहे। उत्तर प्रदेश का एक और पड़ोसी सूबा हरियाणा भी इन दस में शामिल है। उत्तराखंड तो पिछले साल 23वें स्थान पर था और इस साल वह नौवें स्थान पर पहुंच गया, जबकि हरियाणा 14वें स्थान से छलांग मारते हुए छठे स्थान पर जा पहुंचा। वैसे यह मामला ऐतिहासिक कारणों का उतना नहीं है, जितना कि मौजूदा समय की जरूरतों के हिसाब से आर्थिक सुधार लागू करने का है। आर्थिक सुधारों को लागू करने और उद्योगों की राह से बाधाएं दूर करने के लिए जिस नई सोच और प्रतिबद्धता की जरूरत होती है, उसमें अतीत कोई भूमिका नहीं निभाता है। तेलंगाना, हरियाणा और उत्तराखंड जैसे राज्यों ने यह दिखाया है कि ईमानदार कोशिशों की बदौलत राज्य की छवि बदली जा सकती है।
न्याय का तंत्र
न्यायपालिका का काफी समय ऐसे मामलों की सुनवाई में जाता है जिनमें सरकार एक पक्ष होती है।
लेकिन ऐसे बहुत-से काम बाकी हैं जो कार्यपालिका के सहयोग के बगैर पूरे नहीं हो सकते। इनमें सबसे अहम मसला है न्यायतंत्र के पूरी क्षमता से काम करने और उसकी क्षमता बढ़ाने के सिलसिले में आने वाली अड़चनों का। यह किसी से छिपा नहीं है कि हर स्तर पर जजों के बहुत सारे पद खाली हैं। कोलेजियम की सिफारिश के बाद भी पद खाली रहें, तो सरकार अपनी जवाबदेही से पल्ला कैसे झाड़ सकती है? विधि आयोग काफी समय से यह सलाह देता आया है कि जजों की तादाद बढ़ाई जानी चाहिए। पर पदों की संख्या में वृद्धि की कौन कहे, बहुत सारे स्वीकृत पद भी खाली रहते हैं। यही नहीं, कई सारे न्यायाधिकरणों की भी यही दशा है। जबकि देश भर में लंबित मामलों की कुल तादाद तीन करोड़ से ऊपर पहुंच चुकी है। रिक्त पदों को भरना, न्यायिक पदों की संख्या बढ़ाना और अदालती कार्य-संस्कृति में सुधार, ये तीन अहम शर्तें हैं न्याय-तंत्र की क्षमता-वृद्धि के लिए। पर इसके अलावा, अदालतों को मुकदमों के बोझ से राहत दिलाने के लिए प्रशासनिक सुधार भी एक अहम तकाजा है।
ध्यान रहे, काफी सारे मुकदमे प्रशासन में निष्पक्षता, पारदर्शिता और संवेदनशीलता की कमी से पैदा होते हैं। बहुत-से लोग प्रशासन या सरकार से न्याय न मिल पाने के बाद अदालत की शरण में जाते हैं, जहां उन्हें तारीख पर तारीख मिलती है और बरसों चक्कर काटने पड़ते हैं। इसी तरह, ढेर सारे मुकदमे जमीन के रिकार्ड दुरुस्त न होने की वजह से पैदा होते हैं। सरकार का रुख भी मुदकमों का बोझ बढ़ते जाने के पीछे एक बड़ा कारण है। जैसा कि खुद प्रधानमंत्री ने उदाहरण दिया, अगर एक शिक्षक सेवा से जुड़े किसी मामले में अदालत की शरण में जाता है और उसे जीत हासिल होती है, तो ऐसे न्यायिक आदेश को आधार बनाया जाना चाहिए ताकि इसका फायदा मिल सके और बाद के स्तर पर हजारों की संख्या में मुकदमों को कम किया जा सके।लेकिन होता यह रहा है कि सरकार अमूमन उस न्यायिक आदेश के खिलाफ अपील कर देती है। आपराधिक मामलों की विडंबना इसी से समझी जा सकती है कि जेलों में जितने लोग बंद हैं उनमें दो तिहाई विचाराधीन कैदी हैं। फिर, विचाराधीन कैदियों में ऐसे लोग भी होते हैं जो अपने खिलाफ चल रहे अभियोग की संभावित अधिकतम सजा से ज्यादा समय से जेल में सड़ते रहते हैं। ऐसे मामलों की छानबीन कर आपराधिक मामलों को एक झटके में कम किया जा सकता है। जाहिर है, उपाय कई हैं। असल समस्या राजनीतिक इच्छाशक्ति की कमी की रही है।
