To Download Click Here.

Date: 16-04-25

Beijing Blunder?

Curbing rare earth exports may be China’s way of projecting power, but it could backfire

TOI Editorials

For over 10 days now, China has not exported rare earth metals and powerful magnets made out of them. This is part of its retaliation against Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, but the export pause hurts all countries, not just America. China has been careful not to call it a ‘ban’. It says exports will resume after it creates a new licence system. The fear is that it will use its discretion to hurt unfriendly countries like US. Delays of 45 days or more are likely, NYT reports.

Rare earth metals are key ingredients of electric cars, rockets, computer chips, even vacuum cleaners, so a supply choke will hurt industries downstream. Tesla cars and other EVs, for instance, can’t do without super-strong magnets. Critically, US and everyone else needs them for military applications like drones that have proved their worth in the Ukraine war. But this is China’s moment. It has built a monopoly on rare earth processing–the metals themselves aren’t actually ‘rare’ in soil – and magnet manufacturing. So it can pay back US for tariffs and the AI chip ban.

Is US rattled? Trump adviser Kevin Hassett has termed China’s decision “concerning”, but there’s no panic at the moment, probably because this isn’t the first time China has weaponised its rare earth monopoly. It stopped exports to Japan in 2010, with the result that Japan maintains a year’s stockpile now. US does not have a large critical reserve of rare earths, but as Bloomberg expert Javier Blas points out, rare earths aren’t such a big deal. US buys just $170mn-worth of them in a year. That’s 0.03% of its trade with China. Makes you wonder why Trump embarrassed Zelenskyy for $500bn-worth of rare earths that would serve US needs for about 3,000 years.
The point is, while Trump’s tariffs are bad, China is doing itself no favour with this rare earth blackmail. US, which was world’s biggest rare earth producer once, gave up because extracting these metals is a dirty process. However, countries like Australia are more than happy to step in. A US mine will start operations later this year. India also has huge rare earth potential and could become a big supplier. But to protect their new rare earth industries from Chinese dumping, all countries will resort to hefty tariffs. It will be China’s loss.

Date: 16-04-25

Harvarding Back a Valued Brand Equity

Culture war, with institutions as collateral damage

ET Editorials

On Monday, Donald Trump’s version of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry froze $2.2 bn of federal funds for Harvard University, after the college became the first institution to reject policy changes it had demanded. What we’re seeing in US universities is (like in other places) a clash of two ‘club rules’. In one ever-widening corner are the ruling political classes backed by their votaries, who want universities to mirror ‘values of the land’. In the other ever-shrinking corner are safe havens of learning and thinking, whose independence has been integral to their special worth. Mismatch of campus and offcampus worlds, under Trump, is now up for ‘correction’.
Harvard’s pushback is notable on two counts. One, it has the financial heft through private patronage to keep itself relatively ‘un-Trumpled’ and ‘Harvarded’. Columbia — which was first sent a notice on March 13, its $400 mn federal grants held back ‘until’ it expelled some students who participated in anti-Israel protests, reformed its admissions policies, and placed its West Asia studies department into ‘academic receivership’ (read: federal scrutiny) — also had the heft. But it capitulated, preferring a Faustian deal. Two, Harvard’s brand equity — considered ‘Lutyenslike’ and left-liberal incubators by its detractors — remains intact, unlike other Ivy Leaguers being weeded.

While perceived ‘antisemitism’ is being used as a crowbar to pry unis open, much like his unacknowledged role models, Xi Jinping and Vladmir Putin, Don of MAGA College wants total alignment — curtains of universities must match the White House carpet. This is an ongoing culture war where the baby of free-thinking is being thrown out with the water of ideological divergence. What is unfortunate is that while such practice has already damaged institutions elsewhere, vandalisation of universally-valued US institutions has started in earnest, with uninhibited speed now. That ‘elite’ is a qualitative term, and not just anti-establishment chic, is lost upon White House’s wise ones.

Date: 16-04-25

Self-perpetuating

Sudan’s humanitarian crisis needs the world’s attention

Editorial

In April 2023, a power struggle between two generals pushed Sudan, which witnessed a revolution and a counter-revolutionary coup in the preceding years, into a devastating cycle of violence. The conflict has displaced nearly 13 million people, transformed cities, including the capital, Khartoum, into war zones, and triggered economic collapse, inducing the world’s first officially declared famine in four years. More than 1,50,000 people have lost their lives. Yet, the generals, army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and head of the notorious paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, are not done fighting. Although the army suffered setbacks early in the conflict, it has regained ground. Late last month, in a blow to the RSF, Gen. Burhan’s forces took control of Khartoum. The military controls much of northern and eastern Sudan, including the Red Sea city of Port Sudan, the de facto wartime capital. However, the RSF, a potent force, maintains control over much of the western Darfur region, where it is currently laying siege to El Fasher, an army stronghold. Recently, the RSF declared a parallel government in the areas under its control, seeking to shore up political support. So, despite the army’s gains, a decisive victory seems far away.

While the RSF faces credible allegations of large-scale atrocities against civilians, including the rape of children, both sides bear responsibility for Sudan’s descent into chaos and anarchy. The country hoped for a new dawn when mass protests brought down the brutal three-decade dictatorship of President Omar al-Bashir in 2019. After his fall, the military and civilian leaders shared power in a transitional administration, which was seen as a stepping stone toward full civilian rule. But in 2021, Gen. Burhan, then head of the transitional government, refused to hand over power to the civilian leadership. He joined hands with Mr. Dagalo, to orchestrate a coup. Their alliance soon collapsed, bringing civil war. For two years, the international community largely turned a blind eye, while regional powers supported rival factions. The military accuses the UAE of backing the predominantly Arab RSF, while the army gets support from Russia, Türkiye, Iran and Qatar. But two years of war is a testament to the fact that there can be no military solution. Civilians have endured relentless air strikes by the army, indiscriminate attacks and looting by the RSF and a near-total collapse in health care, education and access to food and water in the war-hit areas. The world must pay attention to Sudan’s humanitarian crisis and push for urgent, meaningful talks between the warring factions. What Sudan needs is an immediate ceasefire, followed by humanitarian aid so that at least some measure of stability could be restored.

Date: 16-04-25

A proclamation of democracy in legislative process

The perceived immunity to the Governor and the President in legislative process has been completely removed by the Supreme Court’s recent judgment

Kaleeswaram Raj, is a lawyer in the Supreme Court of India

The recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India, in The State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, was a historic one. But it has also led to another development — the passing of laws without the assent of the Governor or President, which is an unprecedented event in the history of the republic. The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to do “complete justice” in the case and fixed a time limit for the gubernatorial and presidential responses to the Bills passed by the State legislature. It interpreted Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution dealing with the powers and functions of the Governors and the President and laid down principles governing these provisions. It emphatically said that the Governor cannot torpedo the laws made by the legislature that reflects the people’s will.

The judgment that runs into 414 pages has embarrassed the Centre. The Governor of Kerala is on record for his criticism of the judgment. He has expressed his view that the Court has overstepped into the domain of Parliament and exceeded its authority by subjecting even the President of India to judicial review.

The issue of interpretation

The Constitution is not a static document when it requires interpretation. The Court does not read the text of the Constitution in a mechanical way; rather, it interprets it organically in each situation. A centralist Constitution such as India’s often calls for a federalist elucidation, to balance the interest of the States, which essentially means the people of India. Again, very many deficits in the constitutional provisions might require imaginative and purposive construction to fulfil their objective. Scholar Robert Post has rejected the plain meaning theory of interpretation as not a theory at all, for it does not actually involve a process of interpretation.

Constitutional interpretation, unlike statutory interpretation, is bound to be panoramic, futuristic and extensive. The Court’s long journey from the narrow understanding of Article 21 in A.K. Gopalan (1950), which validated the preventive detention, to the broader prepositions on privacy based on the very same article in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) shows the significant transformation in the process. The present judgment, which was rendered by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, demonstrates constitutional modernity and realism.

Article 200 of the Constitution is about the Governor’s duties (not powers) with respect to the Bills passed by the State legislature. Primarily, when a Bill is placed before her, the Governor has three ways ahead: to give assent; to withhold it; or to make a reference to the President. Returning the Bill that is withheld, for reconsideration is the next option. Once a Bill so returned is reiterated by the House with or without amendment, the Governor cannot withhold assent any further. The Article also provides for reserving the Bill for presidential clearance in certain cases. Situations of repugnancy, and patent unconstitutionality on account of breach of express constitutional provisions could be reasons for such a course. Article 201 is on the obligations of the President on reservation of the Bill for her consideration. She can either give assent or withhold it. Also, she can direct the Governor to return the Bill to the President with a message when it is not a money Bill. Reconsideration of such a returned Bill should happen within six months. On reiteration, the Bill should be again ‘reconsidered’ by the President.

Requirement of a reasoned order

This scheme indicated in the constitutional text is not comprehensive. The Court, while deciding the illustrative instance of the Tamil Nadu Governor dragging the Bills, had occasion to scan the intent and the content of the constitutional provisions. One major deficit of the provisions is a lack of a time limit for the Governor or the President to carry out their prescribed function. Again, provisions imply a great element of trust in the constitutional functionaries, which, however, stands betrayed over a period, especially in the recent past. A textual reading of the provisions can only perpetuate these deficits, which in turn, cannot resolve the issue placed by Tamil Nadu in the given case. This realisation has constrained the Court to fix the time limit for gubernatorial and presidential decisions on the Bills. This again has led to the judicial assertion that certain actions or inactions by the constitutional functionaries under these provisions cannot escape judicial scrutiny. In the given scenario, the idea of deemed assent by the President was a constitutional synthesis, for which Article 142 of the Constitution provides a formidable foundation.

The judgment relied on the Sarkaria Commission Report (1988) which said that “nonconformity of a state Bill to the policy of the Union Government is not always a safe ground for withholding presidential assent from it”. The verdict has also underlined the requirement to have reasoned orders when constitutional functionaries choose to decline assent. It rejected the idea of “simpliciter withholding” of the Bills. Thus, the perceived immunity attached to the Governor and the President in the legislative process is completely removed by the judgment. It is a proclamation of people’s democracy in the legislative process.

Therefore, the criticism that the Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in the given case is clearly misconceived. It is erroneous to think that the Court has ‘amended’ the Constitution only because it supplemented (not supplanted) the constitutional provisions to meet the exigencies. It does not amount to legislation either, as the conclusions in the judgment only rest on a thorough precedential survey on the issue. It quoted Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Shamsher Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab (1974), a seven-judge Bench judgment, which is still regarded as the locus classicus on gubernatorial functions under our constitutional scheme. The present verdict imported the people’s right to enact laws while Shamsher Singh was more on the binding nature of the decision of the cabinet chosen by the voters. The Court could reject the idea of “unfettered discretion” in referring the Bills to the President, as laid down in B.K. Pavitra vs Union of India (2019), based on larger Bench decisions such as the one in Shamsher Singh. It is promising to see the judiciary in an assertive mode, after a long interval, that too in a case where it directly confronted the political executive at the Centre.

Suggestions to consider

Yet, two suggestions may be useful for the time to come. The first is that in critical constitutional adjudication, instead of rendering huge verdicts after a long time, the Court needs to resort to the practice of delivering shorter judgments within a shorter span of time. The judgment of the U.K. Supreme Court in the Brexit-related case, R(Miller) vs The Prime Minister (2019), was just 24 pages. Brevity and promptness in the judicial process could be of great support for a nation in trouble.

Second, when matters of the similar nature are pending adjudication, the Court must have a system to club them together so that the same Bench hears the cases together. A lack of proper internal management in the Court was felt when after the Tamil Nadu judgment, a request had to be made on behalf of the State of Kerala to place its petition seeking similar relief before the same Bench. Propriety demands that such a request is heeded to forthwith, to ensure certainty, predictability and clarity, which are essential facets of constitutional adjudication.

Date: 16-04-25

फैसले के कुछ अंश अमल के स्तर पर शंका के घेरे में

संपादकीय

यह सच है कि अनेक राज्यों में राज्यपाल की संस्था अपने संवैधानिक दायित्व निभाने की जगह केंद्र के लिए काम कर रही थी। ऐसे में तमिलनाडु सरकार की राज्यपाल के खिलाफ अपील पर एससी का फैसला सामयिक और स्पष्ट है। लेकिन फैसले के कुछ अंश अमल के स्तर पर शंका के घेरे में हैं। फैसले के एक अंश में कहा गया है कि किसी बिल की संवैधानिकता को न्यायिक दिमाग से परखना चाहिए, लिहाजा राष्ट्रपति से संविधान अपेक्षा करता है कि वह अनुच्छेद 143 के तहत ऐसे बिल को देश की सबसे बड़ी न्यायिक संस्था को राय के लिए प्रेषित करेंगी। न्यायविद मानते हैं कि बगैर कानून बने किसी बिल पर फैसला देना कोट्र्स के अधिकार क्षेत्र से परे है। एक और अंश के अनुसार अगर राष्ट्रपति तीन माह में बिल पर कोई फैसला नहीं लेतीं तो राज्य सरकार के लिए कोर्ट के दरवाजे खुले हैं। यानी कोर्ट बिल पर विलम्ब की स्थिति में राज्यों को राष्ट्रपति के खिलाफ कोर्ट आने की दावत दे रहा है। कार्यपालिका, विधायिका और न्यायपालिका के बीच शक्ति-संतुलन की व्यवस्था वाले संविधान में ऐसी स्थिति तमाम नए विवाद पैदा करेगी। दूसरे, एससी में गैर-भाजपा राज्य सरकारों की याचिकाओं की झड़ी लग जाएगी। देश में 28 राज्य है और औसतन हर राज्य विधानसभाओं द्वारा पारित बिलों में कम से कम 5 हर साल राज्यपाल राष्ट्रपति के विचाराधीन भेजते हैं। कोर्ट को आमजन के मामलों में फैसला देने में वर्षों लग जाते हैं, ऐसे में क्या वह अपने लिए नई समस्या नहीं पैदा कर रहा है?

Date: 16-04-25

मिले-जुले प्रयासों की जरूरत

गिरीश पाण्डे

भारत का विनिर्माण (मैन्युफैक्चरिंग) क्षेत्र वैश्विक स्तर पर तेजी से उभर रहा है। इसकी स्थिति में निरंतर सुधार देखा जा रहा है। वैश्विक विनिर्माण जोखिम सूचकांक – 2021 में भारत ने अमेरिका को पीछे छोड़ते हुए दूसरा स्थान प्राप्त किया जबकि चीन पहले स्थान पर रहा। इस रैंकिंग से पता चलता है कि अमेरिका और एशिया- प्रशांत क्षेत्र की तुलना में मैन्युफैक्चरर्स भारत को पसंद कर रहे हैं। उल्लेखनीय है कि यह इंडेक्स यूरोप, अमेरिका तथा एशिया-पैसेफिक (एपीएसी) के 47 देशों में ग्लोबल मैन्युफैक्चरिंग के लिए आकर्षक या प्रॉफिटेबल डेस्टिनेशन की रैंकिंग करता है।

वर्तमान में विनिर्माण क्षेत्र देश के सकल घरेलू उत्पाद में 17% और 27.3 मिलियन से अधिक श्रमिकों के साथ देश की आर्थिक वृद्धि में अभिन्न स्तंभ के रूप में उभर रहा है। राष्ट्रीय विनिर्माण नीति (एनएमपी) के अनुसार, भारत का लक्ष्य 2025 तक अर्थव्यवस्था के उत्पादन का 25% विनिर्माण से प्राप्त करना है। भारत में 2030 तक 1 ट्रिलियन अमेरिकी डॉलर मूल्य के सामान निर्यात करने की क्षमता है, और इस प्रकार यह प्रमुख वैश्विक विनिर्माण केंद्र बनने की राह पर है। ‘मेक इन इंडिया’, ‘प्रधानमंत्री गति शक्ति योजना’, और ‘उत्पादन से जुड़ी प्रोत्साहन योजना’ जैसी नीतियों ने विनिर्माण क्षेत्र को सशक्त किया है।

सरकार ने विनिर्माण क्षेत्र को बढ़ावा देने के लिए अन्य बहुत-सी योजनाएं भी बनाई हैं। इस क्षेत्र में विदेशी निवेश आकर्षित करने के लिए कई विशेष आर्थिक क्षेत्र (सेज) भी स्थापित किए हैं। घरेलू विनिर्माण ईकोसिस्टम बनाने के लिए इलेक्ट्रॉनिक्स मैन्युफैक्चरिंग महत्त्वपूर्ण है, इसके लोकलाइजेशन के लिए नये सिरे से स्कीम बनाई जा रही है। इससे चीनी प्रतिस्पर्धियों की तुलना में स्थानीय निर्माताओं की प्रतिस्पर्धात्मकता में संभावित रूप से सुधार करने में मदद मिलेगी। ग्लोबलाइज्ड सप्लाई चेन और बढ़े हुए भू- राजनीतिक जोखिमों की दुनिया में उनकी बारगेनिंग पावर भी बढ़ेगी। विनिर्माण क्षेत्र में कच्चे पदार्थ को मूल्यवान उत्पाद में बदला जाता है । यह क्षेत्र विशेष रूप से श्रम आधारित है। है। इसमें मशीनरी औजार और श्रम का इस्तेमाल किया जाता है। मगर विगत वर्षों में इसकी गति अपेक्षाकृत धीमी रही है।

विनिर्माण क्षेत्र में यद्यपि उत्पादन बढ़ा है, लेकिन विश्लेषक इसे नाकाफी बताते हैं। उनका मानना है कि बुनियादी ढांचे का अभाव, कुशल श्रम की कमी और ऋण प्राप्त करने की कठिनाइयां, व्यापार नीति में निरंतरता का अभाव और जटिल कानूनी प्रावधानों तथा शैक्षणिक एवं कौशल व्यवस्था की अपर्याप्तता आदि सभी इसको प्रभावित करते हैं। जमीन अधिग्रहण से लेकर बिजली पर आने वाले खर्च और तमाम मंजूरियां हासिल करने में लगने वाले वक्त से लेकर माल ढुलाई (लॉजिस्टिक) की लागत और कर विवाद आदि के कारण भारत देसी-विदेशी विनिर्माण कंपनियों के लिए सही जगह नहीं बन पाया है। यह क्षेत्र वैश्विक मांग में कमी और चीन जैसे देशों से बढ़ती प्रतिस्पर्धा से भी प्रभावित हुआ है। चीन दुनिया में सबसे बड़ी विनिर्माण एवं व्यापारिक शक्ति बन चुका है। चीन 1 लाख करोड़ डॉलर से अधिक व्यापार अधिशेष (ऐसी स्थिति जब कोई देश आयात से अधिक निर्यात करता है) की स्थिति में है, जो वेमिसाल आंकड़ा है। मगर ट्रंप के सत्ता में दुबारा लौटने के बाद जिस प्रकार से चीन के साथ उसका टैरिफ वॉर चल रहा है, उसके मद्देनजर बड़ा सवाल यह भी खड़ा होता है कि चीन के उत्पादों का पश्चिमी देशों के बाजार में पहुंचना बंद हो जाएगा तो वे कहां जाएंगे? चीन तो इन उत्पादों का उत्पादन बंद नहीं करेगा क्योंकि यह उसकी अर्थव्यवस्था के लिए घातक होगा और अपस्फीति का जोखिम बढ़ जाएगा।

लिहाजा, चीन की अधिकांश कंपनियों के लिए निर्यात प्राथमिकता रहेगी। चीन से ये उत्पाद भारत जैसी विकासशील अर्थव्यवस्थाओं में धकेले जाएंगे। ऐसे में विकासशील देशों के लिए जोखिम यह है कि चीन में तैयार उत्पाद उनके बाजारों में आने से वे अपना औद्योगिक ताना- बाना सुरक्षित रखने और आकार एवं दक्षता बढ़ाने के लिए संघर्ष करेंगे। इस खतरे की आशंका अधिक है कि चीन इन देशों में स्थानीय औद्योगिक आधार को कमजोर कर देगा जिससे वे आकार, लागत एवं तकनीक के मोर्चे पर चीन की औद्योगिक ताकत का मुकाबला नहीं कर पाएंगे। इसलिए हमें चीन से आने वाली वस्तुओं से निपटने की रणनीति तैयार करने और बेहतरीन एवं उच्च गुणवत्ता वाले उत्पाद तैयार करने के लिए अपने उद्योगों को सतर्क करना होगा और औद्योगिक गतिविधियों में कमी आने से रोकने और आपूर्ति व्यवस्था सुरक्षित रखने के लिए जरूरी उपाय करने होंगे।

यह भी गौर करने योग्य है कि अभी दूरसंचार सुविधाएं मुख्य रूप से बड़े शहरों तक ही सीमित हैं। सूक्ष्म, लघु और मध्यम उद्यमों के लिए ऋण तक अनुकूल पहुंच की कमी और कार्यशील पूंजी की उच्च लागत भी एक बड़ी बाधा बनी हुई है। इसके अतिरिक्त, कमजोर या खराब आपूर्ति श्रृंखला प्रबंधन से इस क्षेत्र की लागत में वृद्धि होती है। विनिर्माण क्षेत्र को बढ़ावा देने के लिए सरकार, उद्योग जगत, व्यावसायिक प्रशिक्षण संस्थानों आदि सभी हितधारकों के स्तर से मिले – जुले प्रयासों की आवश्यकता है।