Date: 11-07-16

More of the same

Namami Gange programme does not appear to have learnt from the failings of earlier Ganga cleansing projects

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has spoken of his love for the river Ganga on more than one occasion. His election speeches were replete with reverential references to the river and aviral (unhindered) Ganga has become a catchphrase of the Modi government’s water programmme. One of his first announcements as PM underlined the priority to cleaning up what is regarded as a sacred river by a large section of Hindus, but actually resembles a sorry drain in most parts of its 2,500 km stretch. Within a month of being sworn in, the Modi government launched the Namami Gange programme to rejuvenate the river. To be executed over five years, the project has a budget outlay of Rs 20,000 crore. This is 10 times more than what was allocated in previous Ganga cleaning programmes — Ganga Action Plan (GAP) phase I and II. But more money and the prime minister’s zeal, notwithstanding, Namami Gange seems a carryover from its predecessor in one crucial respect: The overwhelming emphasis on pollution abatement that had led to the GAP’s failure bedevils Namami Gange as well

In certain respects, Namami Gange is an improvement on the GAP. The cleanliness programme that took off on July 7 with the launch of more than 200 projects has projects to develop interceptor drains, plant trees and improve the river species composition. There are also plans to develop Ganga Grams — villages where people will be educated in reducing pollution. The GAP had none of these. But like its predecessor, Namami Gange lays much store on improving the sewerage infrastructure by constructing new sewage treatment plants (STPs) and improving the older ones. In this respect, it seems that the government has not learnt lessons from the GAP’s failure. The lag between sewage generation and treatment has remained between 55 per cent and 60 per cent even as new sewage treatment plants were built under the GAP. This is because a lot of the waste is generated outside the sewerage network and is not conveyed to the STPs. A large section of the country’s urban population lives outside this network.

Moreover, the STPs can only do so much. The water treated at the STPs undergoes final cleansing at the river. Where is the water for that? With more than 40 dams, barrages and weirs — and many more planned — aviral Ganga seems nothing more than an empty catchphrase. Ganga is the sum total of the contribution of some 12 major tributaries. Without a rejuvenation strategy for each of Ganga’s tributaries, there can be no Ganga rejuvenation.

Date: 11-07-16

End of an ideal

Brexit militates against the spirit of human oneness.

Written by Karan Singh

BREXIT has multiple repercussions — political, economic and social — that will continue to reverberate for many years around the world. As a student of political science and one who has followed world affairs since the end of the World War II, I have felt a personal sense of disappointment at this event. For my generation, brought up on the history of multiple wars in Europe for several centuries, resulting in havoc and millions of deaths, the emergence of the European Union (EU) was virtually a miracle. Countries such as France, Germany and Great Britain that had been at each other’s throats for many generations had finally decided that the time had come to sink their differences and move towards an economic, and then a quasi-political union.

Miraculously, in front of our very eyes, the deutsche mark disappeared, the franc disappeared, the Italian lira disappeared and were replaced by the euro. Instead of having to change currency and produce visas whenever one crossed national borders, it became possible to travel smoothly throughout Europe on a Schengen visa. This movement towards regional groupings seemed to be a logical progression from the nation state towards the rapidly emerging global society unified by astounding technological breakthroughs, especially instant communications. We held up the EU as a template towards which SAARC should attempt to move. The idea was that in due course these regional groupings would come together in a more effective structure than the present UN, thus paving the way for what the poet Alfred Tennyson called “The Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World”.

Into this idealistic notion Brexit has come like a black swan. Whether or not this marks the beginning of the unraveling of the EU remains to be seen, but it is certainly a setback to what we thought was a logical development towards a harmonious global society. The persistent turmoil in West Asia and the subsequent massive emigration of millions has, of course, been a significant factor in this development, and this is echoing across many European countries as well as the US. The ISIS has declared its delight that Brexit has taken place, which itself has ominous overtones.

Sri Aurobindo in a message on August 15, 1947 (also his 75th birthday) outlined five dreams for the future of India and the world. His third dream for a “world-union” is so relevant that it merits being reproduced in full.

“The third dream was a world-union forming the outer basis of a fairer, brighter and nobler life for all mankind. That unification of the human world is under way; there is an imperfect initiation organised but struggling against tremendous difficulties. But the momentum is there and it must inevitably increase and conquer. Here too India has begun to play a prominent part and, if she can develop that larger statesmanship which is not limited by the present facts and immediate possibilities but looks into the future and brings it nearer, her presence may make all the difference between a slow and timid and a bold and swift development. A catastrophe may intervene and interrupt or destroy what is being done, but even then the final result is sure. For unification is a necessity of Nature, an inevitable movement. Its necessity for the nations is also clear, for without it the freedom of the small nations may be at any moment in peril and the life even of the large and powerful nations insecure. The unification is therefore to the interests of all, and only human imbecility and stupid selfishness can prevent it; but these cannot stand for ever against the necessity of Nature and the Divine Will.”

“But an outward basis is not enough; there must grow up an international spirit and outlook, international forms and institutions must appear, perhaps such developments as dual or multilateral citizenship, willed interchange or voluntary fusion of cultures. Nationalism will have fulfilled itself and lost its militancy and would no longer find these things incompatible with self-preservation and the integrality of its outlook. A new spirit of oneness will take hold of the human race.”

To say that Brexit reflected “human imbecility and stupid selfishness” would perhaps be too strong a condemnation, but its negative implications are certainly a matter of grave concern and we can only hope that the “catastrophe” he mentions does not involve a nuclear conflagration. That Sri Aurobindo, once the fiery prophet of Indian nationalism, had come to hope that nationalism would finally give way to a “new spirit of oneness” is striking, but on the ground things seem to be moving in the opposite direction. To close on a lighter note, here is a limerick: “God’s plan made a hopeful beginning/ But Man spoiledhis chances by sinning/ We hope that the story/ Will end in God’s glory/ But at present the other side’s winning.”

Date: 12-07-16

Lesson plan:

Javadekar must free education from political meddling and red tape

A theme song of the Modi government goes, ‘Mera desh badal raha hai, agey badh raha hai’… the country is changing, moving ahead. It’s true that signs of this desire to move ahead are everywhere. But the problem’s an acute shortage of opportunities. An educational deficit in particular is clogging up the aspirational pipeline, creating multiple distortions. For example, the hunger for getting into IITs – a rare assured route to a good job – seems to have sent different boards racing to inflate school scores. So 99% has become routine in the all-important Class XII exam without a corresponding uptick in learning outcomes. Increasing both the supply and quality of education – the first will also lead to the second if free competition is assured – is the key task facing new HRD minister Prakash Javadekar.

At 23.6% our gross enrolment ratio in higher education is one of the lowest in the world. On top of this, India routinely fails to place in the top 200 of world university rankings. Experts warn of an employability catastrophe rather than demographic dividend unless there is a dramatic improvement in the skilling ecosystem. Clearly the command and control mindset that’s bought things to this sorry pass can’t deliver the necessary course correction. Only academic and financial autonomy will deliver excellence – and growth – in higher education.

At the school level there have been important gains in infrastructure and enrolment. Previous HRD minister Smriti Irani can boast meeting the Swachh Vidyalaya target of over four lakh toilets in government schools. But teaching standards in many of these schools are simply appalling. For example a new survey has found 41 government schools in the Gurgaon district alone functioning as one-teacher wonders: He or she also has to be clerk, warden, midday meal server, nurse and much else. Even more than schools India needs more teachers, but properly trained ones who are made accountable for learning outcomes – rewarded for success and punished for failure.

Javadekar must recognise that the time for band aids is long past. Nothing less than a radical unshackling of the educational system from political patronage and red tape will suffice. The illiberal saffronising mindset is a path to becoming Pakistan; instead what India must aspire for is a free-thinking, innovative ecosystem. If educational reforms are politically difficult, a second best strategy is to set up special educational zones where experiments are really free to soar, including foreign and for-profit ones.

Date: 11-07-16

Storm in the South China Sea

NEHGINPAO KIPGEN

The International Court of Arbitration is set to give its ruling on the South China Sea disputes on July 12 amid strong opposition from China. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hong Lei, has said: “I again stress that the arbitration court has no jurisdiction in the case and on the relevant matter, and should not hold hearings or make a ruling.”

The case filed by the Philippines at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea at The Hague in 2013 seeks to counter the Chinese claims in the South China Sea. Beijing insists that Manila’s case is an issue of territorial sovereignty over which the tribunal has no jurisdiction.

China claims almost all of the South China Sea along the nine-dash line on the map. The Philippines argues that the claim made by China is against international law.

The current round of tension between the two countries began in 2008-2009 after a tense but bloodless stand-off over the Scarborough Shoal, which led to China gaining de facto control of it in 2012.

China’s expansionist moves

In recent years, attention has shifted to China’s construction and installation of military-capable infrastructure in the Spratly Islands. The pace and scale of China’s island-building works have dwarfed the presence of other countries that engage in similar activities, and is beginning to take on a more overtly strategic character, which includes the construction of runways and port facilities.

There are no easy answers to the South China Sea disputes. At the same time, it is well understood by the parties concerned as well as the international community that the disputes need to be resolved.

Because of the capital spent on island-building works by individual countries on the one hand and the sea’s rich natural resources and annual revenues generated from the sea routes on the other, none of the disputing parties is likely to sacrifice or surrender its claims easily.

The underlining problem is the claim of overlapping areas by different countries, that involve Brunei, China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan and Malaysia.

One of the fundamental principles of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been to resolve disputes by peaceful means and to reach agreement by a consensus. But over the years, the position of ASEAN on the South China Sea disputes has been weak. At times, the organisation has been unable to formulate a consensus policy. This is partly due to the fact that not all 10 ASEAN members are claimants to the South China Sea. Another reason is that members of ASEAN have overlapping claims among themselves. Moreover, bilateral relations between China and some smaller ASEAN members, such as Laos and Cambodia, are also a factor. Because of its economic and military power, China has been able to win over some ASEAN members.

Dynamics within ASEAN

China is well aware that a united voice of all ASEAN members would have greater force. ASEAN’s inability to build a united front on the South China Sea disputes is a major challenge for the regional bloc. There is no single country in ASEAN party to the South China Sea disputes that is capable of challenging China individually. This is an important reason why ASEAN has welcomed the role of the United States as a power balancer on the issue.

While China insists on talks among the parties concerned, the claimants in ASEAN want to pursue it through multilateralism or the Court of Arbitration. The existence of two diametrically opposing approaches is a major challenge for bringing a mutually acceptable solution to the South China Sea disputes.

Since China has openly refused to acknowledge or accept the ruling of the arbitration court, despite support from several countries, as well as its lack of enforcement power, this channel is likely to be inconclusive.

Looking forward

However, the reactions of the international community in the aftermath of the court’s ruling is bound to put pressure on the disputing parties. The ruling may also provide a justification for coalition action.

To resolve the disputes peacefully, the claimants should be willing to abandon their confrontational attitude and agree to find some common grounds even if this requires sacrificing certain portions of their claims.

For example, one possible peaceful solution would be for all claimants to limit their claim to the areas of 200 nautical miles of the Exclusive Economic Zone in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). By agreeing to such proposal, the parties to the dispute can also reach an agreement to leave international waters for free navigation.

Another way out is for the parties concerned to establish a common ownership of the disputed areas whereby all the revenues from the South China Sea are equitably shared among the littoral countries.

Yet other possibility is for the disputing countries to specifically lay out their claims and allow a neutral party to adjudicate on the basis of the UNCLOS or any other relevant international laws.

But for now, all eyes are on the July 12 ruling.

Nehginpao Kipgen is Assistant Professor and Executive Director of the Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Jindal School of International Affairs, O.P. Jindal Global University.

Date: 11-07-16

Ending impunity under AFSPA

“Accountability is a facet of the rule of law.” This established legal principle has acquired fresh significance after the Supreme Court ruled that the armed forces cannot escape investigation for excesses in the course of the discharge of their duty even in “disturbed areas”. In such notified areas, security personnel enjoy statutory protection for their use of “special powers”. While hearing petitions demanding an inquiry into 1,528 deaths in counter-insurgency operations and related incidents in Manipur, the court has said the provisions of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and the purported immunity it offers to the use of force “even to the extent of causing death” are not invincible. Such legal protection, especially in a State that has been under AFSPA for nearly 60 years, has to yield to larger principles of human rights, and no allegation of the use of excessive or retaliatory force can be ignored without a thorough inquiry. This is a requirement both of democracy and for the preservation of the rule of law. The court has sought tabulated details on 62 specific cases in which there is some evidence that the deaths involved were not genuine operational casualties but extrajudicial killings or fake encounters. Even though the 85-page ruling draws its broad principles from an earlier Constitution Bench verdict in Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights (1997), it has special meaning in the present context, with a growing body of opinion that AFSPA should be repealed or amended.

The court is not unaware of the circumstances prevailing in Manipur and its neighbouring States. What has caused consternation is the near-total absence of any inquiry. In most cases, not even a first information report has been registered, and in some, the cases are against the victims. The court has acknowledged that additional powers have been given to the armed forces to deal with terrorism effectively. However, it also made clear that this cannot be an excuse for extrajudicial killings — whenever such allegations surface, they have to be investigated, regardless of whether the person concerned is a dreaded criminal, terrorist or insurgent. The court has reminded the authorities of the circumstances in which the use of force, even to the point of causing death, is immune from prosecution and the Army’s own list of dos and don’ts while operating in a disturbed area. It has rejected the notion that every person bearing arms in a disturbed area is ipso facto an “enemy”. The occasion calls for an investigation into allegations of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, especially those already documented or partially probed. It must give momentum to the demand for the repeal of AFSPA as a necessary step to end impunity.