25-11-2020 (Important News Clippings)
To Download Click Here.
Date:25-11-20
RBI Drops A Bombshell
Proposal to allow business houses into banking is fraught with risk for financial system
Raghuram Rajan, And Viral Acharya,[ Raghuram Rajan is Former Governor, Viral Acharya is Former Deputy Governor of RBI ]
The RBI recently released a report of an Internal Working Group (IWG) to review bank ownership guidelines. RBI reviews its regulations periodically, and by and large this working group has done the usual thorough job. Yet its most important recommendation, couched amidst a number of largely technical regulatory rationalisations, is a bombshell: it proposes to allow Indian corporate houses into banking.
The proposal raises an important question: Why now? Have we learnt something that allows us to override all the prior cautions on allowing industrial houses into banking? We would argue no. Indeed, to the contrary, it’s even more important today to stick to the tried and tested limits on corporate involvement in banking.
As in many parts of the world, banks in India are rarely allowed to fail – the recent rescue of Yes Bank and of Lakshmi Vilas Bank are examples. For this reason, depositors in scheduled banks know their money is safe, which then makes it easy for banks to access a large volume of depositor funds. The rationales for not allowing industrial houses into banking are then primarily two.
First, industrial houses need financing, and they can get it easily, with no questions asked, if they have an in-house bank. The history of such connected lending is invariably disastrous – how can the bank make good loans when it is owned by the borrower? Even an independent committed regulator, with all the information in the world, finds it difficult to be in every nook and corner of the financial system to stop poor lending. Moreover, regulators can succumb to either political pressure or the urgency of the moment.
The RBI recognised the risk of excessive exposures to specific houses in 2016 by announcing group exposure norms. These norms have been relaxed recently. Moreover, as the IWG suggests, it is always difficult to discern the connections that make a borrowing entity part of an industrial house. Some favoured ones are expanding merrily, financing asset purchases with yet more borrowing, imposing greater risks on the system.
The second reason to prohibit corporate entry into banking is that it will further exacerbate the concentration of economic (and political) power in certain business houses. Even if banking licences are allotted fairly, it will give undue advantage to large business houses that already have the initial capital that has to be put up. Moreover, highly indebted and politically connected business houses will have the greatest incentive and ability to push for licences. That will increase the importance of money power yet more in our politics, and make us more likely to succumb to authoritarian cronyism.
Can the regulator not discriminate between “fit and proper” businesses and shady ones? It can, but it has to be truly independent, with a thoroughly apolitical board. Whether these conditions will always pertain is debatable. Moreover, once the bank licence is given, the licensee’s temptation will be to misuse it because of self-lending opportunities. The bailout costs to the exchequer could be significantly more when it comes to bank licences to industrial houses, which will start out big.
Why is there urgency to change the regulation? After all, committees are rarely set up out of the blue. Interestingly, the IWG reports in its appendix that all the experts it consulted except one “were of the opinion that large corporate/ industrial houses should not be allowed to promote a bank”. Yet it recommends change!
It’s true that India needs more banking services – as the IWG points out, India’s credit to GDP ratio is abysmally low. It’s equally true that despite the low level of lending, our banks incur huge loan losses, which ultimately fall on the taxpayer. Is it wise then to induct corporate houses with significant conflicts of interest into banking? If the aim is to bring in more managerial capabilities, the RBI already allows business houses that don’t have more than a certain fraction of their business in non-financial enterprises to apply for a bank licence. Why not encourage more of these less-conflicted houses to apply for a licence?
One possibility is that the government wants to expand the set of bidders when it finally turns to privatising some of our public sector banks. It would be a mistake, as we have said in an earlier paper, to sell a public sector bank to an untested industrial house. Far better to professionalise public sector bank governance, and sell stakes to the broader public – that would help promote a shareholder culture, as well as distribute wealth more widely. This could be coupled with some large stakes sold to financial institutions, who can bring governance, as well as financial and technological expertise to the bank.
A second possibility is that an industrial house holding a payment bank licence wants to transform into a bank. One recommendation of the IWG that’s equally hard to understand is to shorten the time for such transformation from five to three years, so perhaps the surprising recommendations have to be read together.
One can speculate endlessly. In the IWG’s favour, it has suggested significant amendments to the Banking Regulation Act of 1949, aimed at increasing the RBI’s powers, before allowing corporate houses into banking. Yet if sound regulation and supervision were only a matter of legislation, India would not have an NPA problem. It’s hard not to see these proposed amendments as a subtle way for the IWG to undercut a recommendation it may have had little power over.
In sum, many of the technical rationalisations proposed by the IWG are worth adopting, while its main recommendation – to allow Indian corporate houses into banking either directly or through the NBFC route – is best left on the shelf.
Date:25-11-20
Sunshine Sector
A stable operating environment will enable India’s quick transition towards renewable energy
TOI Editorials
Solar power tariffs keep crashing, without an end in sight. That is good news. Media reports indicate that recent bids invited by Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) recorded tariffs of Rs 2 per unit, a marked fall from the previous low of Rs 2.36 per unit. The constant lowering of tariffs gels with India’s ambitious plan to transition towards increasing the incidence of renewable energy sources to power the economy. Under the umbrella of renewable energy sources, solar power is arguably the most important. It’s where technological advances promise to make today’s low tariffs irrelevant soon.
The Narendra Modi government signalled that increasing solar power generation is a policy priority early in its first term. It set a target of increasing installed capacity to 100 GW by 2022. It was a smart move which coincided with a crash in prices of solar energy equipment. To illustrate, India’s solar capacity at the end of 2019-20 was 34.62 GW, of which 65% had come up in the preceding three years. The favourable global environment was supplemented by some sensible policy decisions to encourage investment in solar power.
Policies such as waiving interstate transmission charges and setting up solar parks to reduce capital costs played a part in the boom. To build on this and hasten India’s transition to an energy economy less dependent on fossil fuels, we need to address challenges that lie ahead. China has played an important part in the ramp up of solar capacity as it is a large supplier of solar cells. In the last four years, China has supplied around 75% to 90% of the value of solar cells imported into India each year. For strategic reasons, the situation cannot continue.
Another challenge is the dire financial position that state electricity distribution companies and state governments find themselves in. The desire to renege on commitments to buy electricity from solar plants can show in many ways. Last year, the new government in Andhra Pradesh walked back on commitments made by its predecessor. The falling tariffs have also adversely affected projects initiated earlier where the tariff is higher as cash strapped states look for ways to lower costs. To build on the early success, both states and the Centre need to foster a stable operating environment for firms. Unless that’s done, we may end up once again with stranded power plants.
Date:25-11-20
Protect Art
Moral policing of OTT content will kill a vibrant new industry
TOI Editorials
In yet another example of moral policing and parading of “hurt sentiments”, an FIR has been registered in Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, against two officials of Netflix over alleged shooting of kissing scenes at a temple in Maheshwar for the web series A Suitable Boy. IPC Section 295A has been invoked against the Netflix officials which carries up to three years’ imprisonment for “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs”. Not only is this unfortunate, if Netflix and the makers of the series are actually prosecuted it will have a chilling effect on over-the-top (OTT) video hosting and streaming services, which represent one of the very few industries that have maintained their vibrancy even in the wake of Covid-19.
Moreover, the action was taken after a complaint by a functionary of the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha. If such complaints are entertained, it will open a Pandora’s Box of facile objections. It will be impossible to create art or any creative content if the makers try to please everyone. Besides, how does an individual complaining about hurt religious sentiments represent outrage of an entire religious community? By this logic anyone can claim to represent his or her religion. Further, if offence is taken at an alleged temple kissing scene, it’s worth noting that MP’s Khajuraho temples exhibit some of the most erotic sculptures in the world.
Plus, the sheer volume and diversity of OTT content makes minute scrutiny impractical. If such scrutiny is forced anyway, it will kill the entire business model, leading to further job losses. This is precisely why there is trepidation about the recent notification bringing all online content, including OTT platforms, under the Union information and broadcasting ministry. OTT platforms are projected to become a Rs 4,000 crore revenue market by the end of 2025. Government shouldn’t kill this golden goose.
But Banks Aren’t Another Business
Sugata Ghosh
The dream, urgency and logic of business houses to own a bank — as they did in another era — is a trial every RBI governor in modern times has had to endure. One of them resisted it bluntly, putting his cards on the table. Another used his charm and diplomacy to buy time and frustrate the lobby. While others were lucky as matters more pressing came to grab the attention of the regulator and sovereign.
What would Shaktikanta Das do? Even if circumstances have forced the hands of the gentle bureaucrat, would he prefer to go down in history as the Indian central banker who opened the doors that his predecessors had kept rmly shut? Mint Street’s collective conscience may be partly satised by the precondition to amend the Banking Regulation Act (and enable a comprehensive supervision) before allowing corporates to run banks.This could mean letting RBI access company records, taking measures like bringing thecorporate aairs ministry, and large parts of a conglomerate coming under RBI’s glare. While this may take time, what if the law is changed sooner than expected — like certain legislations that have been pushed through in recent years? How would RBI react then? First, it has to counter a dual argument from vocal advocates of India Inc: only corporates have the capital that banks need; and, a bank requires an anchor investor — a role that corporates, with their risk taking ability and
deeper understanding of business cycle, can play It’s a specious argument. No bank with a convincing story (even some without one) has had problem in raising capital from institutional and retail investors. And how deep are the pockets of corporates? The stocks they own may have soared, and the companies may command huge market capitalisation. But how many have free cash to bankroll a bank? The need for an anchor is overstated.There are good private banks with diverse shareholding and no identiable promoter. Many banks that performed have not grown on the back of anchors, but were led by credible CEOs and professional teams. In fact, close association of a corporate ‘anchor’ may cast a shadow on the bank if the group’s other businesses collapse.
This old wrangle between conservative central bankers and corporates is wrapped around a fundamental question: what is special about a bank? Corporate houses have a presence in other nancial intermediation: non-banking nance companies (NBFCs), asset management rms, brokerages, life and general insurance, etc. So, why not banks? Because banks cannot aord what other businesses can get away with. In banking, depositors bear the risk A hard-nosed regulator would like to minimise a bank’s exposure to the noxious reciprocity that often exists among non-bank nancial services providers belonging to dierent groups. Besides such arrangements, a corporate promoting a bank raises a sharper question on conict of interest While a corporate-sponsored bank can be barred from lending to group companies, it’s far more diicult to enforce and monitor a ban on loans to suppliers, vendors, their employees and other business associates of group rms.
There is also an unstated fear that powerful conglomerates can slip out of regulatory grasp. If it took years, and a change of political regime, to rein in Yes Bank’s Rana Kapoor, disciplining an inuential corporate would be tougher.
Here’s a little-known story on how RBI’s aversion to corporates has known no bounds. In the run up to the India-US nuclear deal, a European bank owned by an iconic US company was refused to open a branch in India. Asked to explain, the then-governor Y V Reddy told GoI that if a company couldn’t own a bank in its home country, it shouldn’t be allowed to have one in India.
If a bank is perceived to be no dierent from other nancial services, there should be no objection in letting in conglomerates. But it’s not — the very reason why GoI has been hesitant in enacting a Bill that would allow a bank to claw into a slice of depositors’ money to save itself.
Some recommendations on bank ownership make sense. Large NBFCs should, indeed, transform into banks for better regulation. Their promoters should be allowed to hold a higher stake at 26% (instead of 15%) — a level of ownership they deserve for having built the
business. But if a group has sizeable interests in non-nancial businesses, the new bank should refrain from corporate lending and conne to retail, SMEs and agri loans.It’s just not RBI that should tread cautiously. Many corporates, used to appointing their pals as independent directors, inuencing auditors and showering key managers with stock options, must note that besides staking their reputation, every move as a bank would need RBI clearance. It can be a stiing world of
compliance they aren’t familiar with. For the regulator and the regulated, it would be like crossing the Rubicon.
Protecting Article 32
Right to constitutional remedies is the Constitution’s soul. Surely SC is mindful of that
Upendra Baxi, [Professor of law, University of Warwick ,and Former Vice chancellor of Universities of South Gujarat and Delhi ]
The learned Chief Justice of India, Justice SA Bobde, is reported to have stated during the hearing of journalist Siddique Kappan’s bail matter, that the Court was trying to “discourage” recourse to Article 32, the fundamental right to constitutional remedies. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, in a scathing article (‘Their Lordships & Masters’, IE, November 18) says that the CJI has “unwittingly let the cat out of the bag”, demoting the fundamental right to a mere matter of organisational adjudicative leadership. For him, this is “a perfect metaphor for our times”, because such discouraging involves episodic suspension of Article 32. Apart from recalling philosopher Walter Benjamin’s thesis that there is “no document of civilisation which is not at the same time a document of barbarism”, I do not engage the wider aspects of his analysis but here focus narrowly on the analytic of Article 32.
The cat was out of the bag a long while ago. The apex judicial process shows clearly that the Court regards Article 32 as a judicial power subject to the fundamental principles of administration of justice. It has already extended rules and doctrines such as laches (delays) or res judicata (a matter already decided by a competent court) or any other principle of administration of justice. CJI M Hidayatullah in Tilokchand (1970) said that what Article 32 does is to keep open “the doors of this court” and requires the state not to “put any hindrance” to a person seeking to approach the Court. But this does not mean that “the Court must ignore and trample under foot all laws of procedure, evidence, limitation, res judicata and the like”. Justice MP Thakkar (and Justice BC Ray) in Kanubhai Brahmbhatt (1987) went even further: Speaking of the “alarming proportions” of judicial delays, they observed that “time for imposing self-discipline has already come, even if it involves shedding of some amount of institutional ego” and to “inspire confidence in the litigants that justice will be meted out to them at the High Court level, and other levels”. True, faith “must be inspired in the hierarchy of Courts and the institution as a whole” and not” only in this Court alone”. So, even if there is a constitutional right to remedies it remains subject to the discipline of judicial power and process.
But the Court has also discovered new facets of Article 32. As early as 1950, it has ruled that powers under Article 32 are not limited to the exercise of prerogative writs; in 1987 the Court ruled that it has powers to rule for compensation of violation of fundamental rights; and in 1999 it said that this power extended to the rectification of its own mistakes or errors. Thus, it is simply unworthy to attribute or impute any insidious motive from a stray remark: Does CJI Bobde at all wish to cancel all these norms, and more?
Many further questions are raised. First, can the CJI or the Court as a whole suffer from epistemic collapse so as to receive sharp reminders and rebukes from citizen commentators? How may we ever forget that justices swear an oath to protect the “constitution by law established” and that they inherit judicial worlds and wisdom? Second, justices usually come to the Supreme Court not as Alice enters the Wonderland; rather they emerge as judicial beings after long years at the bar and the bench, and many have served as chief justices of one or more high court. Are they then likely to suffer from amnesia of the constitutional fact that Article 32 does not merely confer wide powers on the Court but also the judicial duty to provide constitutional remedies?
Third, do lawyers and justices not know that what distinguishes Article 32 from Article 226 is the very dimension; the high court’s vast jurisdiction technically casts no duty on them to enforce fundamental rights. They have the discretion to act or not to; in contrast, the Supreme Court must.
Fourth, Article 32 is not absolute, no constitutional right is. Of course, the Supreme Court decides on what “appropriate proceedings” should be for it to be so moved. But the Court may not prescribe any process as it likes but only that process which preserves, protects and promotes the right to constitutional remedies.
Article 33 clearly says that the right will not extend to the members of armed forces, those members of armed forces “charged with the maintenance of public order”, those “employed in any bureau or organisation established by law” for “intelligence or counter intelligence”, and “employed by any State bureau or organisation established by any Force” for (or in connection with) “telecommunication system”. Article 32 may not restrict or abrogate the “maintenance of discipline among them”. The Court has also upheld (in 1997) the 50th amendment enlarging the scope of this article against a challenge of the basic structure of the Constitution. And the power may validly be delegated to the rule-making competence of the executive, provided that such rules “are necessary for ensuring the proper discharge of duties by the Armed Forces”.
Justice AK Patnaik, editing further DD Basu’s “Shorter Constitution of India”, rightly doubts the state power to amend a law under Article 33, and particularly Article 34 , authorising Parliament to indemnify particular persons “for any act done… in connection with the maintenance or restoration of order in any area within the territory of India”. But even such a power, Justice Patnaik rightly maintains, will not eclipse the right of a “person… detained without the authority of law… to move for habeas corpus”.
The just demand for an expeditious and effective bail system stems from manifest discrimination in bail where one case is fast tracked whereas others are consigned to slow moving judicial action, even when rights to life and health are endangered. Scandalous judicial delays, measures of decongestion and diversion, and a bold resolution of “who watches the watchman” syndrome now demand urgent apex response.
As the Yale historian Rohit De reminds us vividly, Article 32 makes the apex court into a “people’s court”. And future historians should not be able to conclude that the Court deliberately dealt deathblows to this “soul” of the Constitution, as Babasaheb Ambedkar described Article 32.
Date:25-11-20
Open cautiously
Banking sector needs more competition. But allowing corporates in without strong regulation could heighten systemic risk.
Editorial
Despite repeated calls for liberalising entry into the banking sector in India, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has until now been conservative in its approach when it comes to granting bank licences. Under both the 2001 and the 2013 licensing guidelines, only a few new private sector banks were allowed to enter the sector. Calls for allowing in big corporate houses have until now been firmly resisted by the central bank. But going by the report of the internal working group (IWG) of the RBI, released on Friday, a fundamental shift in the thinking on this contentious issue appears to have taken place. The IWG has recommended allowing large corporate/industrial houses to promote banks in the country, despite most experts cautioning against such a move. While there can be no argument against the need to usher in greater competition, and the need for greater private capital, especially at the current juncture, this recommendation calls for a vigorous and open debate on the issue of corporate ownership of banks before implementation.
The risks associated with allowing large corporate houses to promote banks are well known. As the former Governor and Deputy Governor of the RBI, Raghuram Rajan and Viral Acharya, have warned, doing so could lead to “connected lending”, wherein depositors’ money could easily find its way into the kitty of the corporate promoters and their connected businesses, heightening systemic risk. Given the questionable standards of corporate governance in Indian companies — numerous examples of crony capitalism have come to light in the recent past — questions over conflict of interest are bound to arise. As the report itself mentions, “it will be difficult to ring fence the non-financial activities of the promoters with that of the bank”. There is also the fear of the more politically connected business houses obtaining these licences. And coming at a time when many large corporates are consolidating their position in sector after sector, allowing bigger, muscular, and well-connected business houses entry into banking could lead to further concentration of power. This, as Rajan and Acharya have cautioned, could “exacerbate the concentration of economic (and political) power in certain business houses”.
It has been argued that such concerns can be addressed by strong supervision and well thought out regulation. However, recent episodes such as the collapse of IL&FS, the Nirav Modi scam at the Punjab National Bank, and the implosion of the Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative Bank, don’t inspire confidence in the regulator’s supervisory capabilities. Financial skulduggery is a reality. Creative ways of circumventing regulations are likely to crop up. Thus the importance of first beefing up regulatory and supervisory capabilities can’t be stressed enough. While there is a strong case for liberalising entry into the banking sector, and to encourage the creation of big private banks capable of meeting the financing needs of the economy, a system of stringent checks and balances will need to be put in place before the central bank contemplates any such step.
Say ‘no’ to corporate houses in Indian banking
The banking sector needs reform but the recommendation of corporate-owned banks is neither ‘big bang’ nor risk-free
T.T. Ram Mohan, [ Professor at IIM Ahmedabad ]
An Internal Working Group of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has recommended that corporate houses be given bank licences (https://bit.ly/3fqoLlo). In today’s pro-business climate, you would have thought the proposal would evoke jubilation. It should have been hailed as another ‘big bang’ reform that would help undo the dominance of the public sector in banking. Instead, the reaction has ranged from cautious welcome to scathing criticism. Many analysts doubt the proposal will fly. It is worth examining why.
First, the idea
The idea of allowing corporate houses into banking is by no means novel. In February 2013, the RBI had issued guidelines that permitted corporate and industrial houses to apply for a banking licence. Some houses applied, although a few withdrew their applications subsequently. No corporate was ultimately given a bank licence. Only two entities qualified for a licence, IDFC and Bandhan Financial Services.
The RBI maintained that it was open to letting in corporates. However, none of the applicants had met ‘fit and proper’ criteria. The IWG report quotes the official RBI position on the subject at the time. “At a time when there is public concern about governance, and when it comes to licences for entities that are intimately trusted by the Indian public, this (not giving a license to any corporate house) may well be the most appropriate stance.”
In 2014, the RBI restored the long-standing prohibition on the entry of corporate houses into banking. The RBI Governor then was Raghuram G. Rajan. Mr. Rajan had headed the Committee on Financial Sector Reforms (2008). The Committee had set its face against the entry of corporate houses into banking. It had observed, “The Committee also believes it is premature to allow industrial houses to own banks. This prohibition on the ‘banking and commerce’ combine still exists in the United States today, and is certainly necessary in India till private governance and regulatory capacity improve. (https://bit.ly/3ftp7Yf)” The RBI’s position on the subject has remained unchanged since 2014.
The worry is the risks
What would be the rationale for any reversal in the position now? The Internal Working Group report weighs the pros and cons of letting in corporate houses. Corporate houses will bring capital and expertise to banking. Moreover, not many jurisdictions worldwide bar corporate houses from banking.
It is the downside risks that are worrying in the extreme. As the report notes, the main concerns are interconnected lending, concentration of economic power and exposure of the safety net provided to banks (through guarantee of deposits) to commercial sectors of the economy. It is worth elaborating on these risks.
Corporate houses can easily turn banks into a source of funds for their own businesses. In addition, they can ensure that funds are directed to their cronies. They can use banks to provide finance to customers and suppliers of their businesses. Adding a bank to a corporate house thus means an increase in concentration of economic power. Just as politicians have used banks to further their political interests, so also will corporate houses be tempted to use banks set up by them to enhance their clout.
Not least, banks owned by corporate houses will be exposed to the risks of the non-bank entities of the group. If the non-bank entities get into trouble, sentiment about the bank owned by the corporate house is bound to be impacted. Depositors may have to be rescued through the use of the public safety net.
The Internal Working Group believes that before corporate houses are allowed to enter banking, the RBI must be equipped with a legal framework to deal with interconnected lending and a mechanism to effectively supervise conglomerates that venture into banking. It is naive to suppose that any legal framework and supervisory mechanism will be adequate to deal with the risks of interconnected lending in the Indian context.
Corporate houses are adept at routing funds through a maze of entities in India and abroad. Tracing interconnected lending will be a challenge. Monitoring of transactions of corporate houses will require the cooperation of various law enforcement agencies. Corporate houses can use their political clout to thwart such cooperation.
Second, the RBI can only react to interconnected lending ex-post, that is, after substantial exposure to the entities of the corporate house has happened. It is unlikely to be able to prevent such exposure.
Third, suppose the RBI does latch on to interconnected lending. How is the RBI to react? Any action that the RBI may take in response could cause a flight of deposits from the bank concerned and precipitate its failure. The challenges posed by interconnected lending are truly formidable.
Regulator credibility at stake
Fourth, pitting the regulator against powerful corporate houses could end up damaging the regulator. The regulator would be under enormous pressure to compromise on regulation. Its credibility would be dented in the process. This would indeed be a tragedy given the stature the RBI enjoys today.
What we have discussed so far is the entry of corporate houses that do not have interests in the financial sector. There are corporate houses that are already present in banking-related activities through ownership of Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs).
Under the present policy, NBFCs with a successful track record of 10 years are allowed to convert themselves into banks. The Internal Working Group believes that NBFCs owned by corporate houses should be eligible for such conversion. This promises to be an easier route for the entry of corporate houses into banking.
The Internal Working Group argues that corporate-owned NBFCs have been regulated for a while. The RBI understands them well. Hence, some of the concerns regarding the entry of these corporates into banking may get mitigated. This is being disingenuous.
There is a world of difference between a corporate house owning an NBFC and one owning a bank. Bank ownership provides access to a public safety net whereas NBFC ownership does not. The reach and clout that bank ownership provides are vastly superior to that of an NBFC. The objections that apply to a corporate house with no presence in bank-like activities are equally applicable to corporate houses that own NBFCs.
It points to privatisation
There is another aspect to the proposal that cannot be ignored. Corporate houses are unlikely to be enthused merely by the idea of growing a bank on their own. The real attraction will be the possibility of acquiring public sector banks, whose valuations have been battered in recent years. Public sector banks need capital that the government is unable to provide. The entry of corporate houses, if it happens at all, is thus likely to be a prelude to privatisation. Given what we know of governance in the Indian corporate world, any sale of public sector banks to corporate houses would raise serious concerns about financial stability.
India’s banking sector needs reform but corporate houses owning banks hardly qualifies as one. If the record of over-leveraging in the corporate world in recent years is anything to go by, the entry of corporate houses into banking is the road to perdition.
Date:25-11-20
Love in the time of Hindutva
It is not for the state to decide which relationships are acceptable and permissible
Rama Srinivasan, [ Marie Curie Fellow at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice and the author of ‘Courting Desire ]
The season of ‘love jihad’ is back. It never really goes away but resurfaces — every time with more frequency and vitriol — after periods of hibernation. ‘Love jihad’ emerged from Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) laboratories in Kerala but only found its voice and a scope for destruction in the north under the gaze of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. But following him closely in this latest season are ministers from Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka, and Assam.
The U.P. Chief Minister had, in the past, toyed with anti-Romeo squads employing a similar rhetoric of ‘saving’ women from the unwelcome gaze of men but ‘love jihad’ additionally offers endless possibilities where anti-Muslim rhetoric is concerned. Mr. Adityanath is by no means alone. Bharatiya Janata Party leaders across the country are agonising about daughters and sisters who are apparently defenceless against ‘sensuous’ Muslim men, although these women may not care for such filial connections.
Rhetoric of shame and pity
The campaign builds on the ground prepared by the formerly potent khap panchayats, which had popularised that idea that women who seek consensual relationships must have been lured, tricked or duped. The only other alternative, in the eyes of influential khap leaders like Mahendra Tikait, was lack of shame since “only whores choose their partners.” ‘Love jihad’ weaponises this toxic rhetoric of shame and pity for women who seek to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights but also brings RSS’s years of experience and dedicated cadre into the picture. Unlike khap panchayats which were seen by the mainstream as localised power centres representing a distant, barbaric and medieval India, the anti-‘love jihad’ campaign is actually mainstream.
However, those eager to punish men who enter perfectly legal and consensual relationships might be getting short-changed by forthcoming laws. According to Justice (Retired) Aditya Nath Mittal, Chairperson of the U.P. State Law Commission, his 2019 report that proposes a regulation on religious conversions does not mention ‘love jihad’ nor restricts the scope of conversions to just Hindu-Muslim relationships. In an interview with The Hindu, Justice Mittal admitted that the scope is purposefully broad since a limited scope legislation will not stand in law. Haryana and Madhya Pradesh, meanwhile, are taking cues from Himachal Pradesh, the only State with an existing law that ostensibly curbs ‘love jihad’. This Freedom of Religion Act also does not refer to any religion in particular. It mandates, however, that those who wish to convert notify the district authorities at least one month in advance.
As recent Allahabad High Court judgments show, the curtailment of marriages that follow conversions may not be restricted to the conversion of Hindu women. What is clear, however, is that courts also appear very concerned about the faith of women who choose to convert in order to marry a loved one. The High Court posed the following question as part of a 2014 judgment, Noor Jahan Begum v. State of U.P., that considered the affidavits of five couples who sought protection after consensual marriages: “Whether conversion of religion of a Hindu girl at the instance of a Muslim boy, without any knowledge of Islam or faith and belief in Islam and merely for the purpose of Marriage (Nikah) is valid?”
Although Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani admitted that it is difficult if not impossible to define or delimit the expression of religion, he held that it is a matter of personal faith, one that must stem from “the depth of the heart and mind”. Justice Kesarwani was ostensibly privy to the ‘depths of the hearts and minds’ of not one but five women whose fates he ruled on that day. What is significant is that Justice Kesarwani had, as part of this order, dismissed petitions for protection and non-interference in married life and not pleas that sought a court statement on the validity of marriages. Whether the existing laws and the ones State governments claim they will legislate hold such marriages null and void does not automatically strip women of their right to co-habit with men they love.
A question judges and State governments may well ask at this point is not ‘what is religion’ but rather, ‘what is marriage’? In Salamat Ansari v. State of U.P., the High Court addressed this aspect while also critiquing its own past judgments as “not laying good law” since the task before the court was simply to ascertain “the wish and desire of the girls”. Justices Pankaj Naqvi and Vivek Agarwal remarked that they do not see the petitioners as Hindu and Muslim, “rather as two grown-up individuals who out of their own free will and choice are living together peacefully and happily over a year.”
Facilitating marriages
If conversion is used as a convenient means to marry a partner who belongs to a different faith, the primary offender here may well be State governments and bureaucracies. While bureaucracies make the procedures for solemnising marriages under the Special Marriage Act difficult for both inter-faith and intra-faith couples, governments at times step in to further complicate the process. In 2018, when Justice Rajiv Narain Raina struck down the Haryana government’s ‘court marriage checklist’, he urged the state to facilitate rather than obstruct marriages. He said: “The State is not concerned with the marriage itself but with the procedure it adopts, which must reflect the mind-set of the changed times in a secular nation promoting inter-religion marriages instead of the officialdom raising eyebrows and laying snares and land mines beneath the sacrosanct feet of the Special Marriage Act …” Justice Raina said that India is a secular nation as if in a direct, defiant response to campaigns such as ‘love jihad’ and ruled that the state’s role in marriage does not pertain to its validity.
Ultimately, whether the laws are broad in scope or not may be relevant in individual courts and for individual judges but, constitutionally, it is still not the state’s mandate to decide which relationships are acceptable and permissible. Transforming this reality may well be the endgame.
Date:25-11-20
Daring to love beyond societal limits
‘Love jihad’ builds on tiresome sexual rhetoric which is commonplace in caste society
V. Geetha, [ Feminist historian and writer ]
‘Love jihad’ has slipped effortlessly into our public vocabulary, as if it were a social truism. The term is taken to refer to a deliberate campaign that uses love, seduction and trickery to convert Hindu (and Christian) women to Islam. It is claimed that money and planning are invested in such a venture, with Muslim youth being groomed — provided with mobile phones, dark glasses, and a pair of jeans — to be attractive to Hindu women. Once ‘caught’, it is alleged, Hindu women end up converting to Islam and marrying Muslim men.
Investigations into Hindu-Muslim marriages that appeared to have taken place under ‘suspicious’ circumstances have shown many of these to be consensual. Both the police and the courts have admitted to as much, in Karnataka and Kerala. But such admissions and findings have not deterred those who insist that ‘jihadists’ are on the prowl, and are looking to deceive foolish and trusting Hindu women. There are repeated assertions to this effect, ‘discoveries’ of Hindu-Muslim sexual liaisons, subsequent filing of complaints, and investigations. An imagined threat is thus actualised, in law and through governance. And, thus, ‘love jihad’ assumes a life of its own.
‘Retrieving’ lost Hindu manhood
Invoking a ‘love jihad’ where none exists has to do with a history of Hindu beleaguerment. As historian Charu Gupta has demonstrated, since the 1920s, upper caste Hindu thinkers, men of god and political leaders, especially those associated with the Arya Samaj, Hindu Mahasabha and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, have expressed indignation and resentment against centuries of Muslim rule, and blamed the loss of Hindu ‘manliness’ for allowing such rule in the first place. In order to ‘retrieve’ lost Hindu manhood, they advocated a robust physical culture for Hindu youth, and also warned Hindu men to not let their women go astray. Thus, Hindu men from all castes, including subaltern ones, were enjoined to be watchful and guard their women against Muslim predators, even as women were told to keep themselves ‘pure’ in order that they might be fit mothers of the nation. The idea was to build a grand, national brotherhood of Hindu men from all castes: shared trepidation over Muslim sexual prowess and mistrust of Hindu women’s ability to know what was good for them formed the basis for this putative national community.
Today we are witness to a similar phenomenon. Once again, Hindus are asked to step up and do their duty by their faith. The fundamental difference though is that such an entreaty comes from a position of brute power, but its core content remains the same. While all of this is appalling, the invocation of ‘love jihad’ secures social traction because it repeats and builds on tried and tiresome sexual rhetoric which is commonplace in caste society.
Lawlessness sanctified as custom
Women are often warned of unsuitable men (read: from castes below their own, or from other religions) who shall try and woo them, and are urged to marry within designated limits of caste and community; whereas men are told who they could sexually possess (all women, but in particular those over whom they exercise caste and class authority), and who they ought to legitimately marry. These warnings come with threats of punitive action, often directed against ‘erring’ women who choose to be with men from castes ‘below’ their own, and against Dalit men who ‘dare’ love and marry women from castes placed ‘above’ them.
No law of the land endorses these arrangements, but as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar pointed out, the law notwithstanding, lawlessness, sanctified as custom and tradition, stalks the land, and influences not only civic behaviour, but also the administration, including the judicial system. Unsurprisingly, when young persons across caste lines choose to leave home and marry, they are ‘advised’ by officialdom to be mindful of family and community honour and sentiments. Women, especially, are berated, lectured, and separated from those they have chosen to be with, and ‘restored’ to their natal homes.
Warnings
In a culture that routinely infantilises women or views them as foolish and incapable of rational choice, this is to be expected. From family to kin to khap to caste, women are constantly told what to do, and how to comport themselves, and to ensure that they are not like ‘other’, ‘promiscuous’ women from castes and communities that are socially and culturally ‘low’. Meanwhile, these ‘lower’ caste women are warned that they ought not to step beyond limits ordained for them: not educate themselves, protest the social and economic conditions of their existence, and that if they do, they stand to be punished. Studies of violence against Dalit and Adivasi women indicate that protesting women and those who dare to be different are earmarked for acts of abuse and violence.
Bad enough that caste society is sustained by puerile fears to do with transgressive love, which sadly enough are also internalised by women, who then strive hard to be ‘good’ and proclaim their caste honour. But to have parts of a nation get phobic over women’s alleged lack of emotional judgment and the alleged chicanery of Muslims is worse and civilisationally pathetic. While we stake our rights to lives and loves of our choice, equally, we might want to assert our right to re-imagine this nation, not in terms of faith and caste, but in ways we have learned from anti-caste and feminist traditions — where the nation is essentially an equal, just and fraternal society.
लव जिहाद पर कानून असंवैधानिक हो सकता है
डॉ. वेदप्रताप वैदिक, ( भारतीय विदेश नीति परिषद )
जहां ‘लव’ है, वहां ‘जिहाद’ कैसा? जिहाद तो दो तरह का होता है। जिहादे-अकबर और जिहादे-अशगर! पहला, बड़ा जिहाद, जो अपने काम, क्रोध, मद, लोभ मोह के खिलाफ इंसान खुद लड़ता है और दूसरा छोटा जिहाद, जो लोग हमलावरों के खिलाफ लड़ते हैं। प्रेम के पैदा होते ही सारे जिहादों का यानी युद्ध का अंत हो जाता है। लेकिन फिर भी भारत में यह शब्द चल पड़ा है- लव जिहाद यानी प्रेमयुद्ध।
इस लव जिहाद के खिलाफ भाजपा की लगभग सभी प्रांतीय सरकारों ने जिहाद छेड़ने की घोषणा कर दी है। वे ऐसा कानून बनाना चाहते हैं, जिसके तहत उन लोगों को कम से कम पांच साल की सजा और जुर्माना भुगतना पड़ेगा, जो किसी हिंदू लड़की को मुसलमान बनाने के लिए उससे शादी का नाटक रचाते हैं। ऐसी शादियां दुष्कर्म, लालच, भय और बहकावे के जरिए होती हैं। यह भी कहा जा रहा है कि इन शादियों का आयोजन विदेशी पैसे के बल पर योजनाबद्ध षडयंत्र के तहत होता है।
यदि सचमुच ऐसा हो रहा है तो यह अनैतिक और राष्ट्रविरोधी है। इसके विरुद्ध जितनी सख्ती की जाए, उतनी कम है लेकिन इधर कानपुर से आई एक सरकारी जांच रपट के मुताबिक ऐसा एक भी मामला सामने नहीं आया है, जहां धर्म-परिवर्तन के लिए विदेशी पैसा इस्तेमाल हुआ या कोई योजनाबद्ध षड़यंत्र किया गया। सरकार के विशेष जांच दल ने ऐसे 14 मामलों की जांच-पड़ताल के बाद यह निष्कर्ष निकाला है। 11 मामलों में उसे शादी के पहले दुष्कर्म के मामले जरूर मिले हैं।
लव जिहाद के मामले प्रायः मुसलमान लड़कों और हिंदू लड़कियों के बीच हो रहे हैं। लेकिन ‘लव जिहाद’ शब्द चला है, केरल से। पिछले 10-11 वर्षों में केरल और कर्नाटक के पादरी शिकायत करते रहे कि लगभग 4000 ईसाई लड़कियों को जबरन मुसलमान बनाया गया है। उनका आरोप है कि धमकाकर, लालच देकर या झूठ बोलकर उनका धर्म-परिवर्तन करा दिया गया है।
इस आरोप की जांच-पड़ताल सरकारी एजेंसियों ने की लेकिन उन्हें ऐसे प्रमाण नहीं मिले कि उन अंतर्धार्मिक शादियों में लालच, डर या बहकावे का इस्तेमाल हुआ। हां, कुछ इस्लामी संगठनों के ऐसे प्रमाण जरूर मिले, जो धर्म-परिवर्तन (तगय्युर) की मुहीम चलाए हुए हैं। लेकिन यदि यहूदी और पारसियों को छोड़ दें तो ऐसा कौन-सा मजहब है, जिसके लोग अपना संख्या-बल बढ़ाने की कोशिश नहीं करते? इसका बड़ा कारण स्पष्ट है। वे यह मानते हैं कि ईश्वर, अल्लाह, गाॅड या यहोवा को प्राप्त करने का उनका मार्ग ही सर्वश्रेष्ठ और एकमात्र मार्ग है। और फिर संख्या-बल राजनीतिक वजन भी बढ़ाता है।
हिंदू धर्म ही एकमात्र ऐसा है, जो मानता है कि ‘एकं सदविप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति’ यानी सत्य तो एक ही है लेकिन विद्वान उसे कई रूप में जानते हैं। इसीलिए भारत के हिंदू, जैन, बौद्ध या सिख लोगों ने धर्म-परिवर्तन के लिए कभी युद्ध या तिजोरी का सहारा नहीं लिया। ईसा मसीह व पैगंबर मुहम्मद का ज़माना कुछ और था लेकिन उसके बाद का ईसाइयत व इस्लाम का धर्मांतरण का इतिहास शोचनीय रहा है।
यूरोप में करीब एक हजार साल के इतिहास को अंधकार-युग कहते हैं और यदि भारत, अफगानिस्तान, ईरान और मध्य एशिया का मध्युगीन इतिहास पढ़ें तो पता चलेगा कि यदि सूफियों को छोड़ दें तो इस्लाम जिन कारणों से भारत में फैला है, उनका इस्लाम के सिद्धांतों से लेना-देना नहीं है। भारत में ईसाइयत और अंग्रेजों की गुलामी एक ही सिक्के के दो पहलू रहे हैं। इसका तोड़ आर्य समाज ने निकाला था। ‘शुद्ध आंदोलन’ लेकिन वह अधर में लटक गया, क्योंकि मजहब पर जात भारी पड़ गई। ‘घर वापसी’ का भी वही हाल है।
मजहब और जाति, आज की राजनीति के मजबूत हथियार बन गए हैं। लेकिन दुनिया में प्रेम से बड़ा कोई मज़हब नहीं। कोई भी कानून किसी भी मज़हब के लड़के-लड़की को एक-दूसरे से शादी करने से नहीं रोक सकता। मैं मानता हूं कि यदि कोई कानून सच्चे प्रेम में अंड़गा लगाता है तो वह अनैतिक है। ऐसा कोई भी कानून असंवैधानिक घोषित हो जाएगा, जो हिंदू और मुसलमानों पर एक-जैसा लागू नहीं होगा। कोई कानून ऐसा बने कि हिंदू लड़की मुसलमान लड़के से शादी न कर सके और इसके विपरीत मुसलमान लड़की हिंदू लड़के से शादी कर सके तो वह कानून अपने आप रद्द हो जाएगा। अमेरिका में 1960 तक श्वेत और अश्वेतों के बीच शादी पर ऐसा कानून लागू होता था लेकिन वह रद्द हो गया।
हमें ऐसे सबल भारत का निर्माण करना है, जिसमें अंतर्जातीय और अंतर्धार्मिक परिवार पूर्ण समन्वय में रहते हों। मुझे पिछले 50-55 वर्षों में अमेरिका, रूस, चीन, फ्रांस, ब्रिटेन, मोरिशस, अफगानिस्तान आदि देशों में ऐसे परिवारों के साथ रहने का मौका मिला है कि जिनमें हिंदू पति, अपनी मुसलमान पत्नी के साथ रोज़ा रखता है और मुस्लिम पत्नी, मगन होकर कृष्ण-भजन गाती है, हिंदू पति गिरजाघर जाता है और उसकी अमेरिकी पत्नी मंदिर में आरती उतारती है। यदि दिल में सच्चा प्रेम है तो सारे भेदभाव हवा हो जाते हैं। मंदिर, मस्जिद, गिरजे की दीवारें गिर जाती हैं और आप उस सर्वशक्तिमान को स्वतः उपलब्ध हो जाते हैं।
Date:25-11-20
भारत सिर्फ एक राष्ट्र मात्र नहीं, यह संपूर्ण विचारधारा है
मनोज मुंतशिर, ( लेखक, गीतकार )
भारत, क्या ये सिर्फ शब्दकोश में लिखा हुआ एक शब्द और विश्व के मानचित्र पर बना हुआ सिर्फ एक देश है? अगर ऐसा है तो क्यों इंडिया, भारत या हिंदुस्तान सुनते ही हमारा सीना गर्व से भर जाता है। भारत साधारण नहीं है। बात थोड़ी गहरी है। भारत का असली रहस्य छिपा है भारतीयता में और भारतीयता सिर्फ एक राष्ट्रीयता नहीं, एक भरीपूरी शाश्वत विचारधारा है। राम का शबरी के जूठे बेर खाना और ऊंच-नीच को झुठलाना भारतीयता है।
विवाह से पहले मां बन जाने वाली कुंती को शास्त्रों ने पंचकन्याओं में यानी दुनिया की सबसे पवित्र स्त्रियों में स्थान दिया, औरत का ये सम्मान भारतीयता है। गांधारी ने कृष्ण को अपने वंश के साथ समाप्त हो जाने का शाप दिया और कृष्ण ने भगवान होते हुए भी एक साधारण स्त्री का शाप सिर झुकाकर स्वीकार कर लिया। यही विनम्रता भारतीयता है। रानी कर्णावती की राखी मिलने पर हुमायूं ने अपनी पूरी फौज के साथ उनकी हिफाजत की, उनके लिए लड़े। एक मुसलमान जिसके दीन में राखी का जिक्र तक नहीं है, उसने एक राजपूत बहन के भेजे हुए कच्चे धागे को सिर-आंखों से लगा लिया, ये भारतीयता है।
महाराणा प्रताप का सेनापति कौन था? हकीम खान, एक मुसलमान, जिसने राणा के लिए हल्दी घाटी में अकबर से लोहा लिया। अकबर का सेनापति कौन था, राजा मान सिंह, एक हिंदू। छत्रपति शिवाजी के नेवी एडमिरल का नाम क्या था? दौलत खान। जब शिवाजी अफजल खान से मिलने निहत्थे जा रहे थे तो उन्हें बाघनख पहनकर जाने की सलाह किसने दी थी, रुस्तम जमाल नामक उनके एक मुसलमान मंत्री ने। ऐसे कितने वाकयात हैं जो इतिहास के पन्नों से हमें हिदायत दे रहे हैं कि इस देश को हिंदू-मुसलमान पर बांटने की कोशिश न की जाए।
‘रहीमन मुश्किल आ पड़ी टेढ़े दऊ काम, सीधे से जग न मिले उल्टे मिले न राम’। अकबर के नवरत्नों में एक रहीम, एक मुसलमान कवि पूरी इज्जत के साथ राम का नाम ले रहा है। और क्यों न ले, राम किसी एक धर्म के थोड़े ही थे। लखनऊ के नवाब वाजिद अली शाह जन्माष्टमी पर कृष्ण बनकर रास रचाते थे। उसी अवध में आज भी अगर खान चाचा का इंतकाल हो जाए तो पांडेयजी के दरवाजे पर आई हुई बेटी की बरात को घरवाले बैंड-बाजे की इज्जत नहीं देते, ये कहके कि मुहल्ले के एक बुजुर्ग गुजर गए हैं। ये जश्न का नहीं, मातम का वक्त है। खैर, इतिहास तो अपनी कहानी कहता रहेगा, लेकिन अभी कुछ बरस पहले जो घटना हुई, उस पर नजर डालते हैं।
केदारनाथ में हादसा हुआ, हजारों की तादाद में हिंदू तीर्थ यात्री अपनी जान बचाने के लिए संघर्ष कर रहे थे। सरकारी मदद से पहले आसपास के गांवों से मदद आनी शुरू हुई। इनमें कई गांव मुस्लिम आबादी वाले थे। अभी दो साल पहले कोलकाता के बगुईआटी में हिंदुओं ने एक चार साल की मुस्लिम बच्ची फातिमा को मां दुर्गा बनाकर उसकी पूजा की। इस भारतीयता की मिसाल मैं कहां तक गिनाऊंगा और आप कहां तक गिनेंगे?
हम नौ मजहबों और 3,000 जातियों में विभक्त हैं तो क्या हुआ, हम सिर्फ एक झंडे के आगे सिर झुकाते हैं, वो है तिरंगा। मेरी प्रार्थना है, हमारी नसों में सिर्फ खून नहीं, गंगा और जमुना का पानी बहे। हमारा भारत जिंदा रहे, हमारी भारतीयता जिंदा रहे।
ऊर्जा में आत्मनिर्भरता का ऊँचा दांव
डॉ. अजय खेमरिया, ( लेखक लोकनीति मामलों के जानकार हैं )
भारत 26 नवंबर से ‘ग्लोबल रिन्यूएबल एनर्जी इन्वेस्टमेंट मीटिंग एंड एक्सपो यानी वैश्विक नवीकरणीय ऊर्जा निवेश बैठक एवं प्रदर्शनी’ (रीइन्वेस्ट 2020) के तीसरे संस्करण का आयोजन करने जा रहा है। प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी इसका शुभारंभ करेंगे। इस वर्चुअल समिट में 80 से अधिक देशों के प्रतिनिधि भाग ले रहे हैं। 2014 में मोदी सरकार के सत्ता में आने के बाद से नवीकरणीय यानी अक्षय ऊर्जा को जीवाश्म ऊर्जा स्नोतों का विकल्प बनाने पर उच्च प्राथमिकता से काम हो रहा है। आज भारत की कुल ऊर्जा उत्पादन क्षमता में 36 प्रतिशत अक्षय ऊर्जा की हिस्सेदारी है। बीते छह वर्षों में यह ढाई गुना बढ़ी है और इसमें सोलर यानी सौर ऊर्जा की हिस्सेदारी तो 13 गुना तक बढ़ी है। ऊर्जा मंत्री आरके सिंह ने दावा किया है कि वर्ष 2030 तक भारत में अक्षय ऊर्जा की भागीदारी 40 प्रतिशत और 2035 तक 60 फीसद होगी। यह आंकड़ा भारत में स्वच्छ ऊर्जा की एक नई क्रांति जैसा ही होगा।
31 अक्टूबर, 2020 तक के आंकड़ों के अनुसार कुल 3,73,436 मेगावाट के राष्ट्रीय बिजली उत्पादन में नवीकरणीय स्नोतों की भागीदारी 89,636 मेगावाट है। मोदी सरकार ने 2022 तक 175 गीगावाट और 2035 तक 450 गीगावाट नवीकरणीय ऊर्जा उत्पादन करने का लक्ष्य निर्धारित किया है (एक गीगावाट यानी 1000 मेगावाट)। गुजरात, मप्र, उत्तर प्रदेश, राजस्थान, तमिलनाडु, हिमाचल प्रदेश जैसे राज्य अगले कुछ वर्षों में नवीकरणीय ऊर्जा क्षेत्र के अग्रणी होंगे, क्योंकि इनमें सौर क्रांति की जमीन राज्य और निजी निवेशकों के जरिये बहुत ही सुव्यवस्थित तरीके से विकसित की जा रही है।
मप्र के रीवा में बनाए गए अल्ट्रा मेगा पार्क में 700 मेगावाट बिजली का उत्पादन हो रहा है। यह एशिया का सबसे बड़ा एकल सोलर पार्क है, जिसे दो साल से कम में तैयार किया गया है। रीवा सोलर परियोजना की 26 फीसद बिजली दिल्ली मेट्रो को दी जाती है। इसी तरह उप्र में मिर्जापुर, गुजरात की कच्छ एवं धोलेरा, तमिलनाडु की कामुती, राजस्थान की मथानिया एवं खींवसर, हिमाचल की ऊना, बिलासपुर एवं कांगड़ा जैसी महत्वपूर्ण सोलर परियोजनाओं के जरिये देश भर में इस समय सौर ऊर्जा उत्पादन की स्वर्णिम गाथा लिखी जा रही है। अक्षय ऊर्जा के अन्य घटक पवन, बायो, पनबिजली की परियोजनाओं पर भी मोदी सरकार की प्रतिबद्धता से यह स्पष्ट है कि 2035 से पहले भारत नवीकरणीय ऊर्जा के सभी लक्ष्य हासिल कर लेगा।
अक्षय ऊर्जा के जरिये भारत वैश्विक पर्यावरणीय संकट के समाधान में भी अहम भूमिका निभा रहा है। अकेले रीवा अल्ट्रा मेगा सोलर परियोजना से 15.7 लाख टन कार्बन डाईऑक्साइड का उत्सर्जन रोका गया है। यह धरती पर 2.60 करोड पेड़ लगाने के बराबर है। भारत में अक्षय ऊर्जा की असीम संभावनाएं हैं। जाहिर है जलवायु परिवर्तन के संकट से निपटने के लिए जो प्रतिबद्धता भारत ने व्यक्त की है, वह इसकी विश्व दृष्टि की उद्घोषणा का हिस्सा ही है। भारतीय दृष्टि प्रकृति के शोषण के स्थान पर संतुलित दोहन की समर्थक है। प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी ने जिस प्रभावशाली तरीके से दुनिया के सामने अंतरराष्ट्रीय सौर गठबंधन का प्रकल्प खड़ा किया है, वह पेरिस समझौते के समानांतर सही मायनों में भारतीय लोकमंगल की परिकल्पना का ही साकार रूप है। अंतरराष्ट्रीय सौर गठबंधन और इसके उद्देश्य भारत की आत्मनिर्भरता की अवधारणा का ब्लूप्रिंट भी हैं, क्योंकि हमारी अर्थव्यवस्था का जिस अनुपात में आकार बढ़ रहा है उसकी बुनियाद ऊर्जा केंद्रित ही है। ऐसे में अक्षय ऊर्जा पर निर्भरता आत्मनिर्भरता की हमारी राह को भी आसान बनाएगी।
भारत में औसतन 300 दिन सूरज प्रखरता के साथ उपस्थित रहता है। हमारे भूभाग पर पांच हजार लाख किलोवाट घंटा प्रति वर्गमीटर के बराबर सौर ऊर्जा आती है। एक मेगावाट सौर ऊर्जा के लिए तीन हेक्टेयर समतल भूमि चाहिए। इस लिहाज से भारत के पास इस क्षेत्र में विपुल संभावनाओं का भंडार है। मोदी सरकार ने इस शाश्वत ऊर्जा भंडार को देश की ऊर्जा जरूरतों से जोड़कर जो लक्ष्य तय किए हैं, वह एक सपने को साकार करने जैसा ही है। प्रधानमंत्री इसे श्योर, प्योर और सिक्योर कहते हैं, क्योंकि सूरज सदैव चमकता है, इससे उत्पन्न ऊर्जा पूरी तरह स्वच्छ होने के साथ ही सुरक्षित भी है। इस त्रिसूत्रीय फॉर्मूले पर केवल भाषणों में काम नहीं हुआ, बल्कि धरातल पर परिवर्तन की इबारत लिखी जा रही है। 2016 में पवन ऊर्जा की प्रति यूनिट लागत 4.18 रुपये थी, जो 2019 में 2.43 रुपये हो गई। वहीं 4.43 की दर वाली सौर यूनिट 2.24 रुपये पर आ गई। इसी तरह 2013 में नवीकरणीय ऊर्जा उत्पादन 34,000 मेगावाट था, जो आज 89,636 मेगावाट हो गया है। पूरी दुनिया में अक्षय ऊर्जा उत्पादक देशों में भारत अब तीसरे स्थान पर है।
प्रधानमंत्री मोदी ने आत्मनिर्भरता के मोर्चे पर भी बड़े बुनियादी कदम उठाए हैं, क्योंकि नवीकरणीय ऊर्जा के 80 फीसद उपकरण हमें चीन से मंगाने पड़ते हैं। इसके लिए मोदी सरकार ने राष्ट्रीय सोलर मिशन लागू कर स्वदेशी कंपनियों को आगे बढ़ाने वाले आर्थिक एवं नीतिगत पैकेज पर काम आरंभ किया है। सरकार का दावा है कि उसकी नीतियों के चलते सोलर मॉड्यूल और पैनल विनिर्माण क्षेत्र में 2030 तक भारत आत्मनिर्भरता को हासिल कर लेगा और इस दौरान 42 अरब डॉलर के आयात चीन से नहीं करने पड़ेंगे।
यह स्थिति समेकित रूप से भारतीयों को रोजगार से जोड़ने के साथ ऊर्जा आत्मनिर्भरता के बड़े लक्ष्य को प्राप्त करने में सहायक है। एक अनुमान के अनुसार 2035 तक भारत में ऊर्जा की मांग 4.2 प्रतिशत वार्षिक की दर से बढ़ेगी, जो पूरी दुनिया में सबसे तेज होगी। वहीं विश्व के ऊर्जा बाजार में 2016 में भारत की मांग पांच प्रतिशत थी, जो 2040 में 11 फीसद होने का अनुमान है। इन तथ्यों से समझा जा सकता है कि मोदी सरकार ने दूरदर्शिता के साथ भारत की आर्थिकी को मजबूत धरातल देने का कितना महत्वपूर्ण काम अपने हाथों में ले रखा है।
आधी आबादी को दुनिया के किस कोने में सुकून है
ऋतु सारस्वत, ( समाजशास्त्री )
विश्व का शायद ही ऐसा कोई देश होगा, जहां महिलाओं के विरुद्ध हिंसा नहीं हो रही हो। घरेलू हिंसा से लेकर यौन शोषण, ऑनलाइन उत्पीड़न व लिंग आधारित हिंसा एक ऐसा वैश्विक संकट है, जो कोरोना वायरस के कारण और भी ज्यादा बढ़ गया है। संयुक्त राष्ट्र महासचिव ने कुछ समय पूर्व महिलाओं के विरुद्ध हिंसा के संदर्भ में कहा था, ‘शांति और सुरक्षा मानव अधिकारों एवं टिकाऊ विकास के लिए हमारे सभी प्रयासों के बावजूद लाखों महिलाएं भय में जी रही हैं और इसके दीर्घकालिक परिणाम उनके परिवारों और समुदायों को भुगतने पड़ेंगे।
यह शोध का विषय है कि क्यों महिलाओं के विरुद्ध समाज अनुदार व हिंसक है। संयुक्त राष्ट्र जनसंख्या कोष का एक अध्ययन इस पर दृष्टि डालता है। इस अध्ययन से स्पष्ट होता है कि कम उम्र के लड़कों को आक्रामक व्यवहार करने के लिए प्रोत्साहित किया जाता है। मर्दानगी की विषाक्त भावनाएं युवाओं के जेहन में बहुत छोटी उम्र से ही बैठा दी जाती हैं। उन्हें ऐसी सामाजिक व्यवस्था का आदी बनाया जाता है, जहां पुरुष ताकतवर व नियंत्रण रखने वाला होता है। उन्हें यह विश्वास दिलाया जाता है कि लड़कियों व महिलाओं के प्रति प्रभुत्व का व्यवहार करना है, उनकी मर्दानगी है। नतीजतन एक ऐसा समाज निर्मित हो रहा है, जहां महिलाओं पर आधिपत्य स्थापित करने के लिए बिना किसी ग्लानि के उनके साथ शारीरिक हिंसा की जाती है, ताकि उनका आत्मबल इतना टूट जाए कि वे पुरुषों के समकक्ष खड़े होने का साहस न कर सकें।
यूरोपीय संघ की मौलिक अधिकार एजेंसी ने संघ के 28 देशों में महिलाओं की स्थिति का आकलन करने के लिए 18 से 74 वर्ष की आयु के बीच की 42,000 महिलाओं पर एक सर्वेक्षण किया। इस अध्ययन के नतीजे बताते हैं कि हर तीसरी महिला अपने 15वें जन्मदिन के बाद कम से कम एक बार शारीरिक या यौन हिंसा का शिकार हो चुकी होती है ,वहीं 22 प्रतिशत को अपने जीवन संगी की ओर से शारीरिक हिंसा या दुष्कर्म का सामना करना पड़ा है तथा 93 प्रतिशत को मानसिक यातना से गुजरना पड़ता है। फ्रांस के आंकडे़ बताते हैं कि हर साल वहां 18 से 75 साल की 2,19,000 महिलाएं अलग-अलग रूप से शारीरिक व यौन हिंसा झेलती हैं, लेकिन इनमें से केवल 20 प्रतिशत ही अपनी शिकायत दर्ज करवाती हैं। यह सहज कल्पनीय है कि जब विकसित देशों की यह स्थिति है, तब भारत में महिलाओं के विरुद्ध हिंसा के आंकडे़ कितने डरावने होंगे।
एनसीआरबी के ताजा आंकड़ों के मुताबिक, साल 2019 में भारत में स्त्रियों के विरुद्ध हुए अपराध में 7.3 प्रतिशत की बढ़ोतरी हुई है। पिछले साल महिलाओं के खिलाफ 4.05 लाख अपराध दर्ज किए गए। इनमें 1.26 लाख घरेलू हिंसा के थे। इस पर आंखें मूंदने वाले पुरुषों को स्वीकार करना होगा कि वे भी इस हिंसा के भागीदार हैं। संयुक्त राष्ट्र महासचिव ने कहा है कि दुनिया भर में स्त्रियों के खिलाफ हिंसा में वृद्धि होने पर भी समाज पुरानी तिकड़मबाजियों में लगे रहने की कोशिश कर रहा है। दोष मढ़ना उसकी प्रवृत्ति बन चुकी है। महामारी पर दोष मढ़ना, सामाजिक-आर्थिक दबाव पर दोष मढ़ना, यहां तक कि क्षुब्ध कर देने की हद तक पीड़िता को जिम्मेदार ठहरा देना समाज की आदतों में शामिल है।
कोरोना आपदा से पहले दुनिया भर में औसतन 137 महिलाएं रोजाना परिवार के किसी सदस्य द्वारा मारी जाती थीं। कोरोना काल में भी महिलाओं के खिलार्फ हिंसा लगातार बढ़ रही है। चिली के कुऑर्डिनाडोरा फेमिनिस्टा 8 एम ने कोरोना संकट के लिए नारीवादी आपातकालीन परियोजना तैयार की है, जिसके दो महत्वपूर्ण बिंदु हैं। पहला, महिलाओं के पक्ष में सामूहिक और पारस्परिक सहायता की रणनीति विकसित की जाए और दूसरा पितृ-सत्तात्मक हिंसा का मुकाबला करने के लिए सामूहिक प्रतिक्रिया दर्ज करने की एक प्रणाली बने।
स्त्रियों पर पुरुषों की हिंसा एक व्यवस्थागत समस्या है। स्वीडन में पिछले कई साल से स्कूलों में समानता और एक-दूसरे के आदर जैसे विषयों पर परियोजनाएं चल रही हैं। स्वीडन इस सोच को सामाजिक समस्या मानता है, जिसका मकसद पुरुषों द्वारा महिलाओं पर नियंत्रण करना है। जाहिर है, सामाजिक समस्याओं का समाधान समाज ही कर सकता है, लेकिन सरकारें उसके लिए ढांचा जरूर तैयार कर सकती हैं।
अभिव्यक्ति पर अंकुश
संपादकीय
एक ऐसे दौर में जब दुनिया भर में लोकतांत्रिक स्वरों और अभिव्यक्ति की आजादी के लिए आवाजें उठ रही हैं, केरल में पहले से लागू कानूनों में संशोधन करके बोलने के अधिकार पर अंकुश लगाने की कोशिश हैरान करती है। हालांकि इस कदम के साथ ही देश भर में इसके खिलाफ तीखी आवाजें उठीं, उसके बाद राज्य की वाम लोकतांत्रिक मोर्चा की सरकार ने इस अधिनियम को वापस लेने की घोषणा की। विचित्र यह भी है कि सरकार और मोर्चे में शामिल अन्य दलों तक को इस मसले पर विश्वास में लेने की जरूरत नहीं समझी गई थी। जबकि संशोधित केरल पुलिस अधिनियम के अमल में आने के बाद बोलने की आजादी पर अंकुश लगाए जाने की आशंका खड़ी हो रही थी। शायद यही वजह है कि न केवल राज्य की विपक्षी पार्टियां, बल्कि खुद सत्ताधारी खेमे में शामिल सहयोगी पार्टियों ने भी इस अधिनियम पर आलोचनात्मक रुख अख्तियार किया।
इसका हासिल यह हुआ कि सरकार ने इसे असहमति का सम्मान करने का हवाला देकर वापस लेकर वापस लेने की घोषणा कर दी। गौरतलब है कि राज्य सरकार ने केरल पुलिस अधिनियम में संशोधन करके उसमें एक नया प्रावधान जोड़ा था, जिसके तहत अगर कोई व्यक्ति सोशल मीडिया पर जारी टिप्पणियों के जरिए किसी की मानहानि या अपमान करता तो उसे दस हजार रुपए जुर्माना, तीन साल की कैद या दोनों सजा एक साथ दी जा सकती थी।
सही है कि एक संवेदनशील मसले पर विपक्ष और अन्य सभी पक्षों की ओर से आई आपत्तियों के मद्देनजर केरल सरकार ने लोकतांत्रिक चरित्र का उदाहरण पेश करते हुए अपने कदम वापस खींच लिए। लेकिन सवाल है कि जिस कानून से लोकतंत्र की बुनियाद के रूप में बोलने या अभिव्यक्ति की आजादी बाधित होने की आशंका खड़ी हो रही हो, उसे लागू करने की केरल सरकार को इतनी हड़बड़ी क्यों थी! राष्ट्रीय राजनीति में वामपंथी पार्टियां निजता और अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता की मुखर पक्षधर रही हैं अक्सर दूसरे दलों की सरकारों की ओर जब लोगों पर गैरजरूरी पहरेदारी जैसे कोई नियम-कायदे थोपे जाते हैं, तब वामपंथी पार्टियां जरूरी सवाल उठाती हैं। लेकिन सत्ता में होने पर उसके पैमाने क्यों बदल जाते हैं? इस बात की सफाई केवल यह नहीं हो सकती कि यह प्रावधान केवल महिलाओं और बच्चों को साइबर अपराधों और धमकियों से बचाने के लिए किया गया था और इस पर अन्य पक्षों की ओर से आपत्ति जताए जाने के बाद सरकार ने अपना फैसला बदल लिया।
दरअसल, इस कानून से जुड़े संवेदनशील पहलू पर गौर करना, व्यवहार में उसके असर का ध्यान रखना और अन्य सहयोगियों और विपक्षी पार्टियों से सलाह लेना लोकतांत्रिक प्रक्रिया में पारदर्शिता को सुनिश्चित करता। इसके बजाय सरकार ने मनमर्जी तरीके से इस कानून को थोपना चाहा। यह किसी से छिपा नहीं है कि देश में कई ऐसे कानून अमल में आएं, जिन्हें लागू करते हुए यह आश्वासन दिया गया था कि इससे देश विरोधी गतिविधियों और आतंकवाद को रोकने में मदद मिलेगी। लेकिन व्यवहार में ऐसे कुछ कानूनों के दुरुपयोग पर तीखे सवाल उठे और उन्हें लोकतंत्र, आलोचना, अभिव्यक्ति की आजादी पर हमले और दमन के औजार के तौर पर देखा गया। इसी के मद्देनजर केरल में अब वापस ले लिए गए संशोधित कानून का इस्तेमाल स्वतंत्र स्वरों और आलोचनाओं के दमन के लिए होने की आशंकाएं जताई जा रही थीं। जबकि आलोचनाओं की मंशा अगर बेवजह अपमानित करना या धमकी देना न हो तो आलोचक स्वर लोकतंत्र को मजबूत करते हैं। बेहतर हो कि आधुनिक और सभ्य होती दुनिया में निजता की सुरक्षा, व्यक्तिगत, सामुदायिक गरिमा सहित लोकतंत्र और अभिव्यक्ति की आजादी के अधिकारों को भी मजबूत किया जाए।