Followers

Tuesday, December 18, 2018

New rules on the block

Katowice climate negotiations have yielded a disciplined rulebook for future. It’s now time to deliver.

As the latest UN climate negotiations finally drew to a close this weekend in Katowice, Poland, negotiators finalised a new set of rules to operationalise the 2015 Paris Agreement, as well as a year-long “Talanoa Dialogue”, focused on finding new ways to enhance action and ambition. While doing so, the international community also hoped to send an urgent political signal, given the dire warnings in the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s special report on 1.5°C and the 2018 UNEP Gap Report, highlighting just how far states are from this temperature goal.
Although deep political divisions muted the Katowice signal, negotiators did indeed deliver the bulk of the rules to operationalise the Paris Agreement — a significant diplomatic achievement in the current geo-political context. Particularly with the US’s announced withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and hearty embrace of coal, and, the newly-elected Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro’s equivocation on the agreement and withdrawal of its offer to host next year’s conference. While the rules on markets remain out of reach for now and the rules in general could have been more robust, the basic rules needed to implement the Paris Agreement are now in place.
The Katowice rules will perform several important functions. First, they seek to instil discipline in a process governed by “national determination”. Under the Paris Agreement, states have complete autonomy on the nature and type of climate actions they choose to take, subject to the expectation that they represent a progression on past actions. However, the rules now require them to provide detailed information of their actions. If states have absolute economy-wide targets, they need to provide quantifiable information on their reference points for measurements, the gases covered, their planning processes, assumptions and methodological approaches, how they consider their contribution as fair and ambitious, and how it contributes to the objective of the regime.
Second, the rules flesh out the obligations of states identified in the Paris Agreement, and make them meaningful. For instance, the Paris Agreement contained a general obligation for developed countries to report biennially on their provision and mobilisation of climate finance. The rules identify 15 specific pieces of information that states should submit in these reports, including “projected levels of public financial resources to be provided to developing countries”.
Third, the rules operationalise the key processes established by the Paris Agreement — a transparency framework, a “global stocktake” and a compliance regime — that seek to impose accountability and facilitate implementation. The transparency framework requires states to report on indicators for measuring progress in achieving their targets, which is significant as the Paris Agreement does not impose a binding obligation on states to achieve their targets. More broadly, the transparency rules phase in uniform reporting requirements on developed and developing countries in 2024, something India had consistently opposed. In deference to the concerns of developing countries, the rules allow developing countries to self-determine the reporting flexibility they need. Developing countries, with capacity constraints, can choose both how often and in what detail to report. They will also be provided support in addressing these capacity constraints.
The rules operationalising the global stocktake include information from a wide variety of sources, including non-state actors, and on the full spectrum of issues including loss and damage, equity and science, to assess collective progress towards the long-term goals of the agreement. Although quantitative indicators to operationalise equity in the global stocktake, advocated by many developing countries, proved unpalatable to developed countries, equity features prominently in the global stocktake. The political headwinds favouring national autonomy having proven impossible to resist, the rules specify that the results of the global stocktake will simply identify challenges and opportunities in relation to action and support. It will not have an “individual focus” and will only include “non-policy prescriptive consideration of collective progress”. Nevertheless, the steady flow of information on the “ambition gap” will generate its own pressure on states. The Talanoa Dialogue, the alarming IPCC 1.5°C Report, and various catastrophic climate events this year, have elicited promises from several countries that they will submit more ambitious actions by 2020.
Finally, the rules operationalising the Paris Agreement’s facilitative compliance and implementation mechanism seek to infuse accountability and facilitate implementation. They permit a compliance committee to consider cases where countries have breached binding procedural obligations. Thus, if a state does not submit a contribution every five years or a developed country does not submit its report on provision of finance, the committee will step in. The committee can also step in if there are significant and persistent inconsistencies in reporting. However, it can do this only with the consent of the state concerned. The committee is empowered to assist the defaulting state in identifying and addressing the challenges to implementation. The committee is also authorised to identify systemic challenges in compliance and implementation faced by many parties, with a view to addressing them.
The Katowice rules — detailed, complex and science-based — seek to instil discipline and accountability in the climate regime. While far from perfect, they strike a fine balance between competing interests, create hooks for all parties to operationalise equity, and privilege the flow of information within the system. It’s now time to take the pressure off the international negotiations to set the rules, and begin the arduous process of following them. With new rules in hand, it’s finally time to begin implementing the Paris Agreement and delivering action on the ground.
Source: Indian Express, 18/12/2018

Gandhi did not want and does not need statues

India should see the removal of Gandhi’s statue in Ghana as the decision of a sovereign people having a say in the design of their political architecture and their public spaces.

It will be a waste of good money to spend Rs 25,000 on erecting a clay or metallic statue of the figure of a man who is himself made of clay…” Gandhi, Harijan on February 11, 1939
His view ignored, Gandhi statues were proposed, in his lifetime, across India and in Europe, and clay busts of him came up , without any reference to him, in several places on the subcontinent. They continued to do so, in prodigal numbers, after he was no more, right to our present times. London raised a stunning one in bronze in Parliament Square in 2017, beside those of his two jailors — white South Africa’s Jan Smuts and the Raj’s Winston Churchill.
Statues have a life beyond the vision of their initiators and sculptors. If devotion’s soft petals have been laid on Gandhi’s statues in India, so have antagonism’s sharp points. Such has been the case with statues of his formidable contemporary BR Ambedkar. One can imagine Gandhi laughing at the darts , not without pain. Likewise, one can imagine the architect of India’s Constitution saying , with his wry humour , that he never needed such ‘protection’ of metal gratings under the British Raj.
Liberty and prejudice join hands on freedom’s soil. This is as it should be, as long as the exercise be free of violence and reflect, in court language, “truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.
Last week, “in deference to faculty opinion”, a Gandhi statue was taken down from its plinth in the University of Ghana’s campus in Accra. What caused the “faculty opinion” ? Something that has exercised scholarship and political narratives for quite some time, namely, that Gandhi’s work in South Africa saw him engage exclusively in securing the rights of Indian South Africans, with no interest shown in the much larger and far more outrageous crushing of the rights of Africans. More, that in his writings a younger Gandhi used vocabulary and nomenclature that showed bias against Africans.
What should India’s response to this be ?
Should, in fact, there be an Indian response to this at all ? How can there not be one ? But it must see two truths.
First, Gandhi believed he was born in India but made in South Africa. This makes his Accra statue, in a vital sense, an African entity’s statue being judged by a subsequent African generation, exactly as a Gandhi statue in India would be seen by a contemporary Indian generation.
Second, that being the case, we in India should see the Accra de-installation as the decision of a sovereign people having a say in the design of their political architecture and their public spaces and for them to be able to say, as part of that ‘say’, that Gandhi does not deserve to have a statue raised to him in Africa.
So — and this is where India must come in — we must do so with the honesty which that searingly honest man deserves. Truth demands, Gandhi’s truth demands, that India should recognise that his use of term ‘Kaffir’ for Africans jars and is, today, unacceptable. But ‘the whole truth’ requires us to turn to President Mandela’s comment on Gandhi’s 125th birthday, “Gandhi must be judged in the context of the time and the circumstances.”
When Gandhi visited Britain in 1931, for the Second Round Table Conference, he had an important visitor: young Jomo Kenyatta. The future freedom fighter requested Gandhi to sign his diary. Gandhi did, writing : “Truth and non-violence can deliver any nation from bondage.” The scholar-lawyer Anil Nauriya tells us Kenyatta preserved the diary and its entry with care, even carrying it in his solo suitcase to prison. Gandhi was in Oxford in October, 1931. Speaking of South Africa’s native population as being “ground down under exploitation”, he said: “Our deliverance must mean their deliverance. But, if that cannot come about, I should have no interest in a partnership with Britain, even if it were of benefit to India.”
On January 1, 1939, he said to the Rev S S Tema of the African National Congress who queried him about a future collaboration between Indian and native South Africans : “You… are the sons of the soil who are being robbed of your inheritance. You are bound to resist that. Yours is a far bigger issue.”
African leaders like Kenya’s Kenyatta, Nigeria’s Azikiwe, South Africa’s Luthuli and Mandela saw in Gandhi’s non-violent defiance of racism, an Asian’s quickening of a future African impetus for freedom.
Gandhi did not want and does not need statues. Accra does not want and does not need advice on its statues. But diminishing Gandhi’s role in the history of decolonisation is to reduce a life-size historical verity to ground-level, and prospects of Afro-Asian solidarity to the flatness of a lifeless plinth.
Gopalkrishna Gandhi is distinguished professor of history and politics, Ashoka University
Source: Hindustan Times, 18/12/2018

Mind is a Monkey


People want both God and wealth. They want their businesses to be successful, their children to study well, their health to remain perfect, and their households and cars to run without complication. A person should use his powers of discrimination in order to maintain a balance between spiritual pursuit and worldly affairs. The Vedas say that only he who obeys can command others. Only he who possesses character can build the character of others. If society is perceived to be lacking in character, eventually, progress and betterment are bound to follow. The Bhagwad Gita says whenever unrighteousness prevails, God incarnates on earth to destroy evil and reestablish righteousness. If enlightened people live in isolation, how can the people learn and benefit from them? Not all saints living in isolation are impostors. Nor is it correct to say that because they live in isolation, they are not working for mankind. Bhagwan Nityananda lived in the jungles of Ganeshpuri. Most of the time he remained silent. Yet, thousands of people visited him to obtain peace and happiness. The simplest way to do sadhana is to first steady the mind. Artists, scientists and musicians all excel in their work through concentration of mind. You can realise the Truth only by making your mind steady. The mind is as restless as a monkey. The mind becomes steady as a result of knowledge of the Self. The mind can contemplate the Self but it cannot know the Self, because realisation of the Self is a matter of experience, not of intellectual understanding.

Source: Economic Times, 18/12/2018

Monday, December 17, 2018

Economic and Political Weekly: Table of Contents

Vol. 53, Issue No. 49, 15 Dec, 2018

Editorials

From 50 Years Ago

Ht Parekh Finance Column

Commentary

Review Article

Perspectives

Review of Urban Affairs

Current Statistics

Postscript

Letters

What is 'two-part tariff' in Economics?


This refers to an unconventional pricing technique where a business first charges an upfront fee from consumers for its product and later charges them additional fees based on their per unit usage. A club, for instance, might charge its members a standard membership fee for basic entry privileges and then charge additional fees if members choose to use individual services that are offered by it. The two-part tariff system is considered to be a form of price discrimination that is often employed by profit-seeking businesses trying to maximise their total revenue by the means of fully capturing any consumer surplus that may be available.

Source: The Hindu, 17/12/2018

The spectre of deportation


The outcome of the NRC exercise has implications for India’s ties with Bangladesh

The last date for filing claims and objections for Assam’s National Register of Citizens (NRC) has been extended by the Supreme Court to December 31, from December 15. This exercise of compiling the NRC in the first place has sparked a debate around its political, economic and humanitarian consequences, and its implications for India’s relationship with its neighbours, particularly Bangladesh. In fact, there was some disquiet in Bangladesh when the Indian Army Chief, General Bipin Rawat, lent support to the NRC drive, claiming that those settled in Indian territory without legal jurisdiction posed a threat to national security.
Two-way traffic
Few seem to realise that there are legal as well as illegal Indian immigrants in Bangladesh too. According to the latest available Bangladesh government estimates of 2009, more than 500,000 Indians were working in Bangladesh. More recently, Bangladesh was reported to be among the highest source of remittances to India, behind the United Arab Emirates, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the U.K. Many Indian citizens are securing coveted employment opportunities in Bangladesh through multinational companies, non-governmental organisations, and trading activities. To put things into perspective, most of them are employed in advantageous jobs in Bangladesh while Bangladeshis in India are largely employed in low-paying jobs.
The ruling establishment in India maintains that the NRC is an administrative task overseen by the Supreme Court, and not a political gambit. However, some members of the ruling party have been making hateful anti-migration and anti-Bangladeshi comments that reflect poorly on the prevalent positive relationship between Bangladesh and India.
While Prime Minister Narendra Modi has assured the Bangladesh government that those excluded from the NRC will not be deported, Dhaka has so far been silent on the issue, terming it as an ‘internal matter of India’. This is seen as a signal that Bangladesh, already stretched in terms of resources and manpower to host Rohingya refugees, would not be acceding to a request of taking back Bengali-speaking Muslims in case deportation is initiated. Yet, some remain apprehensive, pointing out that Bangladesh had been similarly unconcerned about the Rohingya issue, which did not prevent the country from ultimately hosting more than a million Rohingya.
Neighbourhood first?
Mr. Modi came to power with proclamation of a ‘Neighbourhood First’ policy. Midway in the final year of his term, the reality speaks quite differently. Nepal, once a time-tested ally, has tilted towards China since the 2015 Nepal blockade barring the entry of fuel, medicine and other vital supplies and holding the state to a literal siege. Nepal now has been given access to four Chinese ports at Tianjin, Shenzhen, Lianyungang and Zhanjiang in addition to its dry (land) ports at Lanzhou, Lhasa and Xigatse, as well as roads to these facilities, ending India’s monopoly to its trading routes. The India-Bhutan relationship has also been strained ever since India temporarily withdrew subsidies on cooking gas and kerosene in 2013, constraining bilateral ties. The Doklam stand-off in the summer of 2017 reinforced Bhutan’s scepticism towards Chinese expansionist plans across the region. Simultaneously, Thimphu has been underlining the landlocked kingdom’s aspiration to affirm its sovereignty. It has, for instance, stepped out of India’s diplomatic influence, as evidenced by its withdrawal from the Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal (BBIN) motor vehicles agreement. The India-China power play has also cast its shadow over Sri Lanka and the Maldives in the last few years.
Against this backdrop of China making inroads into South Asia and India’s backyard, Bangladesh has so far been the most trusted ally of India. On the security front, it has cooperated in India’s crackdown on insurgents. Border Security Force (BSF) chief K.K. Sharma said last year that because of close cooperation with Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) “the number of training places and hideouts of these insurgents (in Bangladesh) has been reduced to almost zero.” Annual bilateral trade is set to cross the $9 billion mark, making it India’s biggest trading partner in South Asia. In addition, Bangladesh has facilitated connectivity with the Northeast by allowing the use of Chittagong and Mongla ports. However, the Teesta water-sharing issue remains unaddressed, non-tariff barriers on Bangladeshi exports persist and border killings are yet to become a thing of the past.
The NRC issue threatens to disturb the equilibrium in India-Bangladesh ties. It is vital to note that Bangladesh is heading for elections at the end of this month, and in poll campaigns, relations with India tend to be played up. Plans for deportation of those not on the NRC list are not only politically imprudent but also risk inciting unrest across the region. Previous similar exercises have not been effective and only resulted in alienating individuals from their natural rights.
Syed Munir Khasru, chairman of the Institute for Policy, Advocacy, and Governance, is based in Dhaka. E-mail: munir.khasru@ipag.org
Source: The Hindu, 17/12/2018

In Good Faith: The rights side of 70

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, holds lessons for a more equitable future.

In his famous book, Man and the State, the French philosopher Jacques Maritain draws attention to the universal essence of human rights above ideologies. He says, “The recognition of a particular category of rights is not the privilege of one school of thought at the expense of the others; it is no more necessary to be a follower of Rousseau to recognise the rights of the individual man than it is to be a Marxist to recognise the economic and social rights.” At the time Maritain was writing these lines, he was deeply concerned with the political and philosophical situations of Europe and the world post World War II and during the Cold War. The practical challenge for a philosopher like Maritain was to formulate the means which could help people around the world to discuss their differences while respecting and assuring human dignity for everyone on the planet. Maritain was right to underline that a dignified life was based on the establishment of the basic needs and rights of every individual independent of his or her race, language, culture, religion or nationality. The core idea of this optimistic philosophy — that states and peoples can discuss practical issues and arrive at mutual agreements despite ideological differences — probably had an effect on René Cassin, the French legal scholar, who was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in drafting the final version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
In his speech to the UNESCO General Council in 1947, Maritain asked the key question about the challenge of overcoming obstacles posed by diverse cultures and ideological differences throughout human history. “How,” he asked, “can we imagine an agreement of minds between men who come from the four corners of the globe and who not only belong to different cultures and civilisations, but are of antagonistic spiritual associations and schools of thought?” Unsurprisingly, the members of the Human Rights Commission, under the leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt (First Lady of the United States from March 1933 to April 1945), charged with the drafting of the declaration, were all well aware of the importance of this challenge. In that sense, from the very beginning, their task was as much philosophical as it was judicial. As such, in the manner of Maritain, who was in search of a new universal ethics, the commission members extended the theoretical foundations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights beyond “the narrow limits of the Western tradition”. Maintaining that human rights transcend religious and cultural differences, Cassin, nonetheless, recognised that they embodied generations of rights expressed by their humanistic and natural law foundations. Moreover, neither Cassin, nor the other drafters of the Universal Declaration were unaware of the contributions and influences of ancient philosophies and religions to the modern understanding of rights. However, influenced by the spirit of the French Revolution and its revolutionary motto “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité”, Cassin identified the four foundational blocks of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as “dignity, liberty, equality, and brotherhood”. By “dignity”, developed in the first two articles of the universal declaration, Cassin referred to all the values which were shared by individuals beyond their sex, race, creed and religion. As for “liberty”, it included articles three to 19, and emphasised on rights related to individual life, liberty and personal security. Under “equality”, Cassin understood rights related to the public sphere and political participation (articles 20 to 26), and, under “brotherhood” were economic, social and cultural rights (articles 27 and 28). Finally, the three last articles (28, 29 and 30) focused on the conditions in which these could be realised in society and the state.
However, the concept of rights — long recognised in historically significant laws, charters and constitutions such as the Magna Carta (1215), American Declaration of Independence (1776), Bill of Rights (1791) and the French Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), and at the foundation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 — did not succeed in overcoming the approaches of the states and individuals who distinguished between “themselves” and “others”. Let us not forget that out of then 58 members of the United Nations, only 48 ratified the universal declaration while Saudi Arabia, South Africa, the Soviet Union, Poland, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Byelorussia and Czechoslovakia abstained, because they were worried that the moral appeal of the document would endanger the sanctity of their domestic laws and regulations.
Consequently, despite Maritain’s call for the universality of human rights and Cassin’s insistence on their indivisibility, the Cold War rivalry between the two blocks and the admission of the newly independent states in the UN, ended with the adoption of two covenants in 1966 on civil and political rights, on the one hand, and, economic and social rights, on the other hand. However, despite the tireless struggles of three generations of individuals and institutions, and the impact of globalisation on human rights, the Universal Declaration is considered as a lantern of hope viewed from afar by political prisoners and refugees around the world. And yet, the philosophy of human rights continues to propel humanity into the future, where many still believe that justice, rights and peace can be constructed. Therefore, if the lessons of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are not learned, and if we do not consider the past 70 years, which separate us from the foundation of this monumental document as a positive journey; the future generations will have great difficulties in overcoming the challenges of the next 70 years.
Source: Indian Express, 17/12/2018