To Download Click here.

Date: 09-06-16

Coming closer: Potential of the India-US nuclear deal is now beginning to be realised

The US leg of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s five-nation tour has seen a significant breakthrough on an issue that was holding up the India-US relationship: that of nuclear commerce. India and the US have agreed to begin preparatory work for building six nuclear reactors in India by American firm Westinghouse. The deal will be the first one based on the India-US civil nuclear agreement struck more than a decade ago. The issue of nuclear cooperation also gains prominence today against the backdrop of India’s application for membership to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

The path to actualising India’s access to nuclear energy has been a tortuous one. Ironically, it was BJP in a previous avatar that stood like a rock against the India-US nuclear deal, when it was being negotiated by UPA. Current external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj had then compared the deal to Emperor Jehangir permitting the East India Company to trade in India. BJP successfully pushed for a very tough nuclear liability law that obstructed India acquiring foreign reactors and technology. But having come to the Centre, Modi devised a workaround to the liability law by having Indian public sector players pick up the insurance premium.

There’s no denying that India needs access to nuclear energy and technology to power its development goals and fight global warming. This is also what underpins India’s membership application to NSG, which President Barack Obama has declared support for. In fact, climate change mitigation is an area of emerging India-US collaboration with Washington promising investment in India’s renewable energy sector. Meanwhile, US support has helped actualise India’s admission to the Missile Technology Control Regime. Plus, the US has now recognised India as a major defence partner, opening the door to greater defence collaborations, technology transfers and co-production of defence equipment in India.

Taken together, there’s no denying that India-US relations have hit a sweet spot. New Delhi must now leverage this and secure favourable terms on items such as visas, trade and services from Washington. Modi should take this message to the next US administration. Although India’s China watchers may baulk at growing proximity to the US, this is not a zero sum game. In fact, it is growing American interest in India that may also persuade Beijing to take India seriously instead of giving Pakistan primacy.

Date: 09-06-16

House matters

Parties should ensure the credibility of the Rajya Sabha is not damaged at a delicate political juncture

There is unprecedented political activity in several states ahead of elections to 57 Rajya Sabha seats on June 11. Independents and smaller parties are in great demand as the national parties eye the RS pie. With competition intensifying, parties have organised retreats, camps and dinners to keep the flock together. A sting operation in Karnataka, where five candidates are in the fray for four seats, showed MLAs negotiating cash and other incentives in lieu of votes. The JD(S), which has fielded a real estate baron in the hope that independents would support him, has demanded the cancellation of polls after some of its MLAs were suspected to be willing to trade their votes. The Congress, which runs the government in Karnataka, has shipped independent MLAs who have promised support to the party nominee, to Maharashtra to prevent poaching. The entry of independents threatens to muddy the situation in UP and Rajasthan as well. The Election Commission in 2012 had to cancel the RS polls in Jharkhand after cash was found in a candidate’s vehicle. Political parties, hopefully, will show responsibility and ensure a scandal-free election on June 11. Else, the credibility of the polls will come under a shadow.

Political parties have, in recent years, collaborated to undermine the mandate of the Upper House. The Constitution conceived of the Rajya Sabha as a House of States, where elders representing their state of domicile participate in the law making process while also keeping a check on the Lok Sabha, the elected assembly. In 2003, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was amended and the requirement of domicile for candidates contesting the Rajya Sabha election was dispensed with, ostensibly to allow political parties greater freedom in their choice of representatives to the House. Parties now see the Rajya Sabha as a House to park unelectable or defeated candidates from states where they have legislative strength. This has also enabled parties to nominate political heavyweights who have lost elections or can no more win them. The political heft of the Rajya Sabha may have risen, but the federal character expected of the House has been lost in the process. The entry of moneybags into the fray has further eroded the character, and credibility, of the House. There may not be any illegality in their election to the Rajya Sabha, but the spirit of the Constitution itself is compromised when parties prefer candidates whose intent and political inclinations are unclear or worse, dubious.

The Rajya Sabha deserves special attention now since it has effectively become the real arena for the government-opposition contest in Parliament. With a fragmented opposition unable to press its case in the Lok Sabha, the role of the Upper House as a bulwark against the lower house forcing its majority on legislative business is enhanced. There is now a pressing need to ensure that its credibility is not in question.

Date: 09-06-16

More Rajan

He has shepherded the economy in an uncertain phase. He must stay at the helm to finish the job

Presenting the monetary policy review on Tuesday, Reserve Bank Governor Raghuram Rajan did what was widely expected by the markets in the run-up — kept policy rates unchanged. That’s because far from softening further since the last review in April, inflation, especially consumer price index inflation, has firmed up. Moreover, the RBI’s three-month inflation expectations survey of households showed that people do not expect inflation to go down substantially. Inflation expectations are often a more important variable in deciding the course of policy than actual inflation. The RBI policy statement said “The inflation surprise in the April reading makes the future trajectory of inflation somewhat more uncertain…” In reality, there are clear upside risks, as Rajan pointed out. For instance, “firming of international commodity prices, particularly of crude oil; the implementation of the Seventh Central Pay Commission awards which will have to be factored into projections as soon as clarity on implementation emerges…” There are other extraneous factors as well, such as the possibility of a rate hike by the world’s most influential central bank, the Federal Reserve, as well as the uncertainty surrounding the possible British exit from the European Union.

The suspense around Rajan’s future at the helm of affairs in the RBI only adds to these uncertainties. He took over in September 2013 at a time when almost all macroeconomic variables, especially those most closely influenced by monetary policy, such as inflation, were running amok. It was his single-minded focus on containing inflation by keeping the interest rates high that has contributed to India weathering the global economic maelstrom. Despite the fact that India is still struggling to control inflation, it is relatively better off than many of its erstwhile equals. Rajan also brought about long-pending structural reforms in the banking sector. He has ushered in a new regime of banking that stresses on differentiated banks, which specialise in reaching specific categories among the vast number of the unbanked in India. Rajan has been a voice of reason on matters of fiscal policy. Time and again, he has predicated monetary policy cuts on the government walking the talk on fiscal prudence.

Rajan has countered uncertainties by following a well-articulated and well-argued policy stance. It is time for the government to take the cue, and end the uncertainty over his extension as the RBI governor.

Date: 09-06-16

Film censorship continues and spreads in India

The Shyam Benegal Committee report does not help matters.

Written by Pankaj Butalia

Reports that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has asked for many cuts in Abhishek Chaubey’s Udta Punjab as well as sought the removal of “Punjab” from its title give a complete lie to the government’s pronouncements that it would like to usher in an era of reduced control on films.

But they do fit in with the paranoia that exists in the minds of the CBFC members which allows a film to lie but does not allow it to tell the truth. This was stated in writing by the counsel for the CBFC in the Delhi High Court in a case against my documentary The Textures of Loss when he said that a fiction film is a work of fantasy and must, therefore, be given much more leeway for exhibition than a documentary, which actually tells things as they are — that is, tells the truth.

Applying the same logic, the CBFC has denied certification to two documentaries — Kamal Swaroop’s Dance for Democracy and late Shubhradeep Chakravorty’s En Dino Muzaffarnagar — in the past. Ironically, none of these actions are actually sanctioned either by The Cinematograph Act or by the various interpretations that courts have held on free speech and on film certification. Yet, individuals appointed to the CBFC continue to act as if they were the sole guardians of public morality, free speech and permissiveness in society.

The Indian government has made two half-hearted attempts to deal with the situation by appointing commissions to review the process of censorship. The Mukul Mudgal Committee Report (2013) was found inadequate and rightly consigned to the dustbin. The hype then shifted to the recently-formed Shyam Benegal Committee (2016) on film censorship. Given the fact that eminent film personalities were on the committee there was hope that at least, this time, the issue would be addressed with the seriousness it deserved but the final report has belied all expectations.

The broad themes of the report suggested that henceforth the focus will be on certification and not censorship; that the numbers of members of the CBFC will be reduced from 25 to 9; and that the categories of certification will be increased by two — one for minors and one for adults.

In itself, the reduction in membership and the increase in categories will do nothing to curtail the censorious attitude of the CBFC. The muddle-headedness of the committee can be seen in the one significant recommendation it has made. In saying the CBFC will no longer have the power to suggest/make cuts, the committee claims to have taken away the scissors. Unfortunately, what it gives with one hand it takes away, and in greater measure, with the other because it gives the CBFC the absolute right to refuse certification to a film which violates section 5B(1) of the act which states: “A film shall not be certified for public exhibition if, in the opinion of the authority competent to grant the certificate, the film or any part of it is against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence.”

This section of the act is nothing but a listing of the reasonable restrictions to free speech in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Now 19(2) poses a hurdle to free speech and anyone attempting to expand the scope of free speech must try and look for ways in which the powers that 19(2) gives to the state (and to the CBFC) can be restricted.

The Supreme Court has “read down” Article 19(2) in no unclear terms in innumerable judgments. The Benegal Committee could easily have made it mandatory for the CBFC to keep such interpretations in mind when evaluating whether there is a violation of 5B(1) or not. Instead, it has given blanket powers to the CBFC by stating “films that violate section 5B(1) of the Act shall not be considered for certification”. This is being more loyal than the king.

All the CBFC has to now do is to refuse certification to any film in which even a minor scene falls under section 5(B)1. After all, decency, morality, public order, the integrity of the country are very broad categories and the CBFC can just wash its hands off a film in the guise of respecting 5B(1). The Benegal Committee has converted censorship to self-censorship — the most effective form of state censorship.

But what happens if a filmmaker does not wish to make changes? The Benegal Committee’s answer to this is “no certification”. The committee’s attitude is reflected in Benegal’s statement to a newspaper (May 4), “If the CBFC refuses to clear films and advises cuts on the basis of section 5B(1), which filmmakers think are not appropriate, they can always challenge the decision in the court”. But surely the committee was set up to curtail the powers of the CBFC and not burden the courts with additional responsibility.

To further bolster his case on censorship, in the same report, Benegal says “You can criticise the establishment. For example, individual cases within the Indian Army can be highlighted in a film, but no country will accept showing its entire army in a bad light”.

First of all, this is just not true. The world over, films have been critical of the state, of the army or its actions. Witness the innumerable films that have been made in Hollywood criticising the US army for its actions in Vietnam and Iraq. It is scary when a senior filmmaker uses statist terms like “inciting communal violence or showing the army in a bad light”.

Films, particularly documentary films on communal violence are about violence that has already been practised by someone. A film is only a messenger. One can understand why the state wants to shoot the messenger but why should a filmmaker provide it legitimacy?

Forty years ago, as a young film enthusiast, I asked Benegal at a seminar whether a filmmaker ought not to be aware of the power of the medium and therefore careful of what and how to depict something. Benegal ticked me off by saying I had allowed the state to get into my head. Ironically it seems that the state now resides permanently in the heads of our leading filmmakers.

Date: 09-06-16

परमाणु क्लब से होंगे सरसब्ज़ !

संजय जोग

भारत को फायदा!
► भारत ने फ्रांस, अमेरिका, रुस, नामीबिया, यूरोपीय संघ, कनाडा, अर्जेंटीना, चेक गणराज्य, कजाखस्तान, कोरिया, वियतनाम और श्रीलंका के साथ यूरेनियम आपूर्ति के लिए किया है समझौता
► नाभिकीय संयंत्रों की क्षमता उपयोगिता में देखा गया है सुधार
► 2009 से ही फ्रांस, रूस, कजाखस्तान से हुई है 3,700 टन की आपूर्ति

नाभिकीय क्षेत्र के विशेषज्ञ यह तर्क देते हैं भारत का प्रवेश अगर नाभिकीय आपूर्तिकर्ता समूह (एनएसजी) में होता है तो इससे यूरेनियम आपूर्ति की खरीद के लिए संभावनाएं बनेंगी और इससे विभिन्न देशों में भारतीय आपूर्तिकर्ताओं और नाभिकीय संघटकों के लिए भी राह खुलेगी। इसके अलावा एनएसजी में भारत की सदस्यता का फायदा यह होगा कि इसे नई तकनीक भी मिलेगी।

करीब 5,780 मेगावॉट की कुल क्षमता वाले 21 नाभिकीय ऊर्जा रिएक्टरों में से 3,380 मेगावॉट क्षमता वाले कुल 13 रिएक्टर अंतरराष्ट्रीय परमाणु ऊर्जा एजेंसी (आईएईए) के संरक्षण के दायरे में आते हैं और ये आयातित ईंधन के पात्र भी हैं। 2008 में भारत और अमेरिका के बीच असैन्य परमाणु करार पर हस्ताक्षर होने के बाद एनएसजी की छूट की वजह से इन रिएक्टरों के लिए यूरेनियम की आपूर्ति में बढ़ोतरी हुई है। इन रिएक्टरों को बढ़ी हुई यूरेनियम की आपूर्ति की वजह से फायदा मिलेगा।

परमाणु ऊर्जा आयोग के पूर्व अध्यक्ष आर के सिन्हा का कहना है कि एनएसजी की छूट की वजह से भारत को खासतौर पर फायदा हुआ है क्योंकि नाभिकीय ऊर्जा संयंत्रों में यूरेनियम की आपूर्ति में बढ़ोतरी हुई। उनका कहना है, ‘भारत एनएसजी से जुड़ रहा है जिससे ईंधन आपूर्ति और कारोबार के दायरे में तेजी आएगी। भारतीय आपूर्तिकर्ता भी दूसरे देशों में विभिन्न नाभिकीय पूर्जे की आपूर्ति करने में सक्षम होंगे।’