Fishermen in troubled waters

India and Pakistan must immediately revive the Joint Judicial Committee on Prisoners.

To be in prison in one’s own country is itself a nerve-wracking ordeal. But imagine how much more agonising it must be to languish in another country’s prison, often endlessly, and for no fault or for minor transgressions, especially if the two countries in question happen to be India and Pakistan?

Every time relations between the two nations nosedive, it automatically affects Indian prisoners in Pakistan, and vice versa. This was most recently typified in the film Sarabjit. Sarabjit Singh, an Indian national convicted by a Pakistani court, died in May 2013 after prison inmates brutally attacked him in Lahore’s Kot Lakhpat Jail. A week later, in what was seen as a tit-for-tat assault of Sarabjit, Sanaullah Ranjay, a Pakistani prisoner, died in a Jammu jail when Indian prisoners attacked him. The stories are similar: if Indian prisoners like Sarabjit, Kirpal Singh, Vaaga Chauhan and Ratan Das have died in Pakistani prisons, Pakistani prisoners like Nawaz Ali and others have died in Indian prisons. What ties their stories together is pain, pathos, and a sense of being victimised.

Jatin Desai

Profile of prisoners 

Whenever a fisherman who has been arrested from the other side of the border dies, it takes at least a month for his body to reach his relatives back home. Fishermen Vaaga Chauhan and Ratan Das, both from Una in Gujarat’s Saurashtra region, were reportedly arrested by Pakistani authorities when their boats strayed into the country’s waters. Though they died in Karachi on December 12, 2015, and February 8, 2016, respectively, their bodies arrived in India months later, only on April 14 this year. Similarly, Nawaz Ali’s body reached Pakistan a month after his death.

These men were not criminals or terrorists; small errors on their part and hostilities between their nations cost them their lives. Yet, not even a fraction of the concern and outpouring of emotion for the deaths of brave jawans is extended to these fishermen; there is no uproar, no debate. Perhaps this has something to do with their low economic status, semi-literacy, and invisibility to the public in both countries.

I have met many Indian fishermen who spent a long time in Karachi Jail. I have also met a few Pakistani fishermen in Rajkot Jail in Gujarat. All their stories are either of miscalculations made while negotiating the sea or errors in direction, both of which have to do with the absence of a clear demarcation of boundaries in the waters.

These prisoners have nothing to do with the policies of their respective governments, but they bear the consequences of these policies or are often held up as “prizes” in a tense geo-political conflict. In Gujarat, where there is pollution near the shores and an overabundance of trawlers, fishermen have no other option but to go farther into the sea to catch fish. This explains why there are more Indian fishermen in Pakistan’s jails than the other way round. Also, while most Indians in Pakistan’s prisons are fishermen, the opposite is not true.

A couple of weeks back, I met some Indian fishermen who had been released from Pakistan’s prisons and repatriated to India in March, in their villages in Gujarat. They recounted similar horror stories: of being denied sufficient food, health services, communication with family members, and delay in consular access. The sad reality is that neither India nor Pakistan treats these prisoners within the norms laid down by international covenants or with any decency.

The need for timely repatriation

And here’s what makes the situation glaringly unfair. India and Pakistan had signed the Agreement on Consular Access in 2008, according to which consular access must be provided within 90 days of arrest of either country’s prisoners. This period is given to help verify the person’s nationality and enable necessary steps to repatriate the person to his or her country of origin.

There have been instances where prisoners could not be released and repatriated because their nationalities were not verified on time. Even today, 18 Indian fishermen remain in Pakistan’s prison after completing their sentences more than a year ago.

In January 2008, India and Pakistan set up the India-Pakistan Joint Judicial Committee on Prisoners, which consisted of retired judges from both countries. The committee worked hard to seek early repatriation of prisoners who have completed their sentences in the other country’s jail and also ensure that they are treated humanely. It met every six months and visited prisoners in both countries. It discussed issues such as health and food of the prisoners and the need to evolve a mechanism for humanitarian treatment of women, the mentally challenged, juvenile prisoners, and so on.

For prisoners lodged in jails in the neighbouring country, meeting judges from the higher judiciary meant a lot. It gave them hope and confidence of returning to their homes. They brought to the notice of the committee members the hardships they faced in these prisons. This intervention helped the prisoners receive better medical treatment. It also allowed family members to find them through the committee members. Both governments applauded the role played by the committee.

Unfortunately, this committee has not met since the Narendra Modi government came to power. In April, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, while assuring the family members of Kirpal Singh that his remains would be brought back soon, said the government would try to revive the judicial committee. Union Minister V.K. Singh told the Rajya Sabha later, much to everyone’s surprise, that the committee had been meeting. This is not true.

India and Pakistan must immediately revive the committee to ensure that the prisoners are ensured their rights and are repatriated at the earliest. It is time that these prisoners, who are victims twice — first of poverty and circumstance, and then of a geo-political conflict — are not held hostage. The least India and Pakistan can do is evolve a policy of no arrest on straying fishermen.

Jatin Desai is a journalist and General Secretary of Pakistan-India Peoples’ Forum for Peace and Democracy.

Keywords: India, Pakistan, Joint Judicial Committee on Prisoners

Source: The Hindu, 23-05-2016

New Anti-Trafficking Law Set for Launch

Binoy Prabhakar

New Delhi:





Draft bill calls for the creation of a special court and investigation agency to tackle human trafficking cases in India

The government is about to unveil a new bill that aims to check human trafficking by unifying several existing laws, meting out tougher punishment for repeat offenders and ensuring the protection and rehabilitation of victims.Besides creating a comprehensive law against trafficking, the draft bill calls for the creation of a special court and investigation agency to tackle such cases and joint working groups with neighbouring countries to undertake preventive measures.
“There is a clear rise in cases of human trafficking in India, with people being trafficked not just for sexual exploitation but also for forced labour,“ a senior official of the Ministry of Women & Child Development, which prepared the draft bill, told ET. “We will finally have a structured mechanism to deal with this growing menace.“
Up to 5,466 cases of human trafficking were reported in 2014, an increase of more than 90% since 2009, according to data from the National Crime Records Bureau.The US Department of State's `2013 Trafficking in Persons Report' estimates that up to 65 million people were trafficked for forced labour in India. It said 90% of trafficking in India is internal.
At present, hu man trafficking cases are dealt with by a hodge podge of laws and multiple agenci es. These laws, in cluding the Im moral Traffic (Prevention) Act, sections of the In dian Penal Code, the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and the Pro tection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, are inadequate because they gloss over prevention or fail to address trafficking beyond sexual exploitation, according to experts.
The draft bill will address these loopholes by bringing forced labour under the ambit of law and by working with the governments of Bangladesh, Nepal and Myanmar to curb trafficking, said the official. To act as a deterrent, the bill proposes to double the jail term to 14 years for repeat offenders and people engaged in the trafficking of minors.
“It is a comprehensive legislation that will tackle the entire gamut of organised crime of human trafficking,“ said Sunitha Krishnan of Prajwala, an NGO based in Hyderabad that has been pushing for a new trafficking law. “It also provides support to victims, which our existing laws didn't.“
The bill proposes to create a rehabilitation fund for victims. It provides for the protection of victims and witnesses by enabling their participation in trials by video conferencing, ending the practice of summoning them to open courts. If victims feel threatened during trials, they can approach a court and seek protection.
A special court will be established ­ a sessions court judge will be designated as a special judge ­ to handle trafficking cases. The specialised investigation agency to probe trafficking cases could be a new body or a new wing of an existing agency. The bill is being vetted by the law ministry and will be released this week for consultations and collecting feedback from the public, experts and state governments.

Source: Economic Times, 23-05-2016

The True Yogi Does Not Kill Emotions

Nayaswami Devarshi





Patanjali, in his Yoga Sutras, gives the most clear and succinct answer to the question, “What is yoga?“ in his aphorism, “Yogas chitta vritti nirodh.“ The great master of yoga, Paramhansa Yogananda, interpreted Patanjali thus, “Yoga is the neutralisation of the vortices of feeling.“Thought itself is neutral. It is only with disturbed feelings and emotions, likes and dislikes, along with emotional reactions to events, that humans truly suffer.
The mind is like a mirror. If a horse is reflected in the mirror, it will not discriminate as to what is reflected. The intellect is necessary to define it, “That's a horse.“ The ego chimes in next and says, “Why , that's my horse!“ It is only when feeling and emotion become engaged, that one says, “How happy I am to see my horse!“ Soul-bondage begins with the ego's `ownership', but real suffering happens with the involvement of feeling and emotion. This is why so many practices of meditation and yoga involve calming the waves of feeling and emotion.
Does this mean that we must deaden or kill our feelings? No! Adi Shankara described God as Sat-Chit-Ananda, or ever-existing, ever-conscious divine bliss. Bliss itself is pure feeling, so one could say , “God is feeling.“
Thus, the true yogi does not kill emotions, but instead transmutes them from restless human emotions that disturb and bind ­ into the calm pure divine `emotion' of Sat-ChitAnanda. Practices of yoga and meditation are simply an ancient technology (technology definition: “the practical application of knowledge“) given to humankind to help us achieve that goal. Following are two simple yoga practices that will help to calm your emotions. The next time you find yourself getting upset or angry , take a long deep inhalation for 10 counts, completely filling the lungs. Hold the breath for 10 counts. Then exhale slowly for 10 counts. Immediately begin inhaling again, and repeat three to five times.
You will notice an immediate and positive change in your state of mind and emotions. The reasons for this change are too complex to explain in a short article, but they are based on the inner science of yoga, breath control and control of the life force, or pranayama.
You can see that when done properly , yoga is an extremely practical technology . It can help you face everyday problems ­ in business, family life, relationships, moods, health, etc ­ with more clarity , calmness, energy and thus with more effectiveness.
Here is another simple practice: Next time you find yourself feeling sad, depressed and emotionally heavy , take note of your physical posture. It is likely that it will reflect your inwardly down-pulling feeling, with the shoulders being slumped, spine bent and eyes looking downward.
You've likely never seen someone looking down at the ground with such a posture stating enthusiastically , “I feel so uplifted!“ And you will never see someone with a straight spine, shoulders back, chest out, eyes looking upward, saying, “I feel so depressed!“ By changing our habitual posture, we can influence our mood and emotions. Hatha yoga can help with this process, so can physical exercise, but simply changing your habitual posture will have surprising effects on your mood. This is one reason why yogis meditate with a straight spine, and with the eyes gazing upward to the spiritual eye at the point between the eyebrows, the kutastha chaitanya centre. (The writer is a kriyacharya at Ananda Sangha Yoga and Meditation Centre.) Post your comments at speakingtree.in

Karnataka, TN, Andhra & Maha have 46% of country's doctors

Chethan Kumar

Bengaluru:





India is struggling with a doctor-patient ratio of 1:1,681. This poor state of affairs is hindering healthcare services across the country. But even among the 9.5 lakh doctors, the distribution is so skewed that just four states -Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and undivided Andhra Pradesh -have nearly 46% of all doctors registered in the country.This leaves bigger states like Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and others with few doctors to share between them.
“The number of doctors in the country is just a portion of what's required to meet the minimum requirement and some states are not even in line with the national average,“ said Singhal, an associate professor (ENT) and head and neck surgeon at SMS Hospital, Jaipur.
According to the mini stry of health and family welfare, out of 9,59,198 doctors registered in the country , 4,36,910 (45.54%) are in the four aforementioned states .
Rajasthan, MP and Uttar Rajasthan, MP and Uttar Pradesh have a total of 1,31,554 doctors, making up for 13.7%, while only three of the seven northeastern states have doctors registered with them and add up to only 22,201. The rest are shared between all other states.
Experts say the situation is worse than what the ministry's statistics reveal.
“There's no doubt that there's an overall shortage and skewed distribution.The problem is that doctors register with the Indian Medical Council or in the respective states when they pass out from the courses and there's no real update.Many of these 9.5 lakh doctors may not even be in the country ,“ Dr Upendra Bhojani, assistant director, Institute of Public Health (IPH), said.
That the four states have the maximum number of doctors should come as no surprise though, as they are among the states with the highest number of medical colleges. Together, they ac count for 69% of all the colleges in the country or 290 colleges out of 422.
Karnataka, which has the highest number (50) of medical colleges in the country , has 1,01.273 doctors (third highest in the country), while Maharashtra, which has the second highest number of medical colleges (48) has the highest number of doctors at 1,53,513.
Tamil Nadu has 1,11,325 doctors and 46 medical colleges, while Andhra Pradesh has 70,799 doctors and 46 colleges. Also, as experts point out, these are also states with a considerable urban population and a good network of private hospitals.
“It's not just the private hospitals that make the difference. Many choose places considering the opportunity to run clinics which is more lucrative in urban areas. Also, they look out for other support infrastructure, like schools and so on, that is good for their families ,“ Bhojani said.

Source: Times of India, 23-05-2016

Climate change likely to hit milk output

Vishwa Mohan

New Delhi:





Govt Starts Project To Promote Desi Cows That Withstand Heat

Dairy business provides livelihood to 60 million rural households in India and the country continues to be the largest producer of milk in the world, but global warming could result in adversely impacting the overall output in the coming years.Indian dairy scientists estimate that climate change will lead to decline in milk production by over 3 million tonnes (MT) per year by 2020.The projections, shared by the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) with the agriculture ministry , should be cause for worry considering the growing demand for milk in the country, estimated at 200 MT by 2021-22.
Though milk production has been steadily increasing with 2015-16 recording an output of 160 MT, the impact of rising temperatures, especially on cross-bred cows, will make the task of meeting domestic demand difficult and could eventually lead to a decline in per capita consumption.
At a time when the world's major producers, including the US, Brazil and Australia, are importing Indian milch animals to develop heat-resistant species, the government is focusing on indigenous breeds by introducing various schemes through its ambitious National Gokul Mission programmes.
“The decline in milk production and reproductive efficiency due to rising temperature will be highest in exotic and cross-bred cattle followed by buffaloes. Indigenous breeds will be least affected by global warming,“ agriculture minister Radha Mohan Singh told TOI.
Singh said the Centre has been assisting states in setting up `Gokul Gram' (integrated indigenous cattle centres) that would scientifically help local farmers conserve `desi' breeds of cows and buffaloes. Gokul Gram will act as a centre for development of indigenous breeds and a dependable source for supply of high genetic stock to the farmers in the breeding tract. So far, the cen tral government has approved setting up 14 Gokul Grams in different states under the National Gokul Mission.
These Gokul Grams will be self-sustaining centres and generate resources from the sale of milk, organic manure, vermi-compost and urine distillates. They will also produce electricity from bio-gas for in-house consumption and sale of animal products.Each Gokul Gram will maintain milch and unproductive animals in the ratio of 60:40 and will have the capacity to maintain about 1,000 animals.
“The indigenous breeds of cows are not only best suited to fight the impact of global warming but these are also known to produce protein-rich (A2 type) milk which protects us from various chronic health problems,“ Singh said. In order to increase the numbers of indigenous cattle and preserve such breeds, the government has also planned to set up two national Kamdhenu breeding centres. One such centre is being set up in Andhra Pradesh, while the other one will come up in Madhya Pradesh.

Source: Times of India, 23-05-2016

The judiciary is shifting the balance of power

It is increasingly becoming the first port of call for solving all problems

Usually known to be measured with his words, finance minister Arun Jaitley cut loose with scathing criticism of the Indian judiciary on the floor of the Rajya Sabha last Thursday. He blamed the judiciary for actively encroaching on the powers of legislative and executive authorities. He claimed that “step by step, brick by brick, the edifice of India’s legislature is being destroyed” by the judiciary. Through a number of judgements, including the one Jaitley referred to in his Rajya Sabha intervention—ordering the creation of a National Disaster Mitigation Fund while national and state disaster response funds already exist—the judiciary has appropriated for itself a role far beyond its primary duties of dispensing justice and interpreting laws.

This encroachment is clearly a matter of huge concern. And to that extent, Jaitley is right. As far as his choice of words is concerned, it is also an indicator of how repeatedly used camouflaged phrases like “judicial overreach” have been incapable of instigating any self-correction by the honourable judges.

The judiciary in India is often called the most powerful among its tribe globally. While the creative interpretations of the text of law had started earlier, the postEmergency phase marked a distinct turnaround in the Indian judiciary’s activism. After the ignominious failure to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens in ADM Jabalpur vs Shivakant Shukla (1976), the court believed a constitutional correction would be insufficient. So, the pursuance of constitutional legitimacy was replaced—in the words of Lavanya Rajamani and Arghya Sengupta—“by a quest for popular legitimacy”. A series of judgements, most notably S.P. Gupta vs President of India and others (1981), gave rise to a new legal instrument called public interest litigation. This instrument allowed “public-spirited individuals seeking judicial redress” on a variety of matters beyond what would be permitted by the traditional rule of locus standi, which specifically addressed the concerns of aggrieved citizens.

Through several judgements thereafter, the judiciary has unhesitatingly shuffled into the roles of both the legislature and the executive. It assumed wide powers in matters of protection of the environment. This process was, however, aided by the executive which dithered in taking politically difficult decisions that might have invited wrath from their constituencies. The overzealousness of the judiciary and the neglect by the executive helped along a gradual obliteration of the separation of powers between the judiciary, the legislature and the executive.

Jaitley is not the only one to speak out. When quizzed about the Supreme Court decision to move Indian Premier League matches out of Maharashtra given the drought in Latur and other parts of the state by an interviewer on NDTV, transport and shipping minister Nitin Gadkari said: “If judges want to do our job, they can resign and contest elections.” Not just the drought, the courts have also evidenced their concerns about the problem of pollution in the National Capital Region. Among a spate of orders, the apex court has doubled the entry tax on trucks entering Delhi. The intention is indeed laudable. But here is a question that should be considered by anyone making such a decision. Who will bear this tax—the truck owners or the citizens of Delhi? Well, it depends on the demand elasticity of goods in Delhi, an overwhelmingly consuming state. This example is ample proof of why the courts which are illequipped to weigh the economic, environmental and political costs involved should keep away from such issues.

To be fair, the judiciary has its own complaints of the executive. Speaking at the chief ministers and chief justices conference, chief justice of India T.S. Thakur grew emotional talking about the long backlog of pending cases. He blamed the centre for moving slow on the appointment of judges and increasing the number of courts and judges. Thakur may indeed be right, but he could have also looked at the propensity of the judiciary to continually expand its sphere of operations and the consequent effect on the backlog.

A bench headed by Thakur himself has been, in recent times, trying to fix the air connectivity to Shimla. And over the past few days, Olympic medallist Sushil Kumar had moved the Delhi high court to help him make the cut for Rio Olympics 2016. Even as the court has refused to interfere, this is another example, if any was needed, to show that the courts have become the first port of call for all problems—from air-connectivity of Shimla to securing nomination in the Olympics.

Source: Mintepaper, 18-05-2016

An IP policy with no innovation

Intellectual property accelerates innovation in certain technology sectors, but it impedes innovation in others. The biggest flaw of the new policy is that it does not acknowledge this.

Intellectual property (IP) regimes suffer a classic paradox. While they attempt to encourage innovation and creativity, they have themselves been shielded from innovation experimentation. For some years now, India has been attempting to break this mould and craft a regime to suit its own distinctive set of concerns. Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, was a bold attempt in this direction, aimed at eradicating “evergreen” drug patents.

Sadly, this distinct attempt at diversifying a problematic global IP script is slowly yielding to larger market forces. It is reinforcing a realpolitik predicated to a large extent on various campaign contributions flooding the coffers of candidates striving to lead the most powerful democracy of the world, namely the U.S.

Shamnad Basheer

Flawed foundation

Enter India’s recently unleashed IP policy into this new political fray — one that, at best, repeats ad nauseam the various platitudinous phrases around intellectual property. That it is meant to foster innovation and creativity. That it must be balanced against public interest and public health. And that the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights or TRIPS is the benchmark and that India is compliant with relevant international norms.

And yet, at worst, the policy represents an extreme excess in terms of its one-sided view of IP as an end in itself. And therein lies the greatest flaw. The policy fails to situate IP within the larger context of the innovation ecosystem, refusing to acknowledge that while IP could accelerate innovation in certain technology sectors, it impedes innovation in others. This is a truth touted not only by those labelled as left-liberal ideologues, but powerful industry giants facing the brunt of a promiscuous patent regime — renowned giants such as Tesla’s Elon Musk who have either eschewed patents or dedicated them to the public domain.

And yet the entire edifice of the present IP policy is built on this flawed foundation equating more IP with more innovation. The policy sounds almost militant when it proposes that despite our ancient “laudable” heritage where knowledge was freely and extensively shared, we must now make amends and convert each piece of our knowledge into an IP asset. This flawed frame results in a number of problematic assertions in the text of the policy.

It advocates that publicly funded scientists and professors must compulsorily convert all of their discoveries into IP assets, much before they have even written this up and published it in reputed science journals — and that their promotions be predicated on the number of IP applications made. A hark back to the past would reveal that visionary scientists such as Benjamin Franklin and, closer home, our own J.C. Bose shunned patents owing to their potential to curb the free flow of knowledge. We must encourage a plurality of approaches when it comes to IP and innovation; our scientists should be free to take this call on whether or not they wish to register IP. Doing so for the mere sake of it is stupid, quite apart from the fact that on an empirical cost-benefit analysis, most U.S. universities lose more money on IP registrations than they make through IP royalties.

The policy needs to be commended for taking note of our “informal” (rural) economy and the need to encourage the prolific creativity found within. Unfortunately, far from understanding the drivers of creativity and the modes of appropriation/sharing in this “shadow” economy, the policy leans towards the superimposition of a formal IP framework on this marginalised sector.

Lastly, much in line with its powerful IP rights-centric approach, the policy recommends that the unauthorised copying of movies be criminalised. No doubt Bollywood requires some protection from pirates, but criminalising what is essentially a civil wrong (much like defamation) is tantamount to killing an ant with an elephant gun, not to mention the potential for abuse at the hands of our police.

A short-sighted policy

Indeed, the present policy could well be the classic poster child for IP formalism. We had expressed caution against such a reductionist view in the first draft of the IP policy formulated by a think tank (of which I was part). Unfortunately the government unceremoniously disbanded our committee after we submitted the policy and disregarded our exhortation to conceive of the policy as a more broad-based and holistic Innovation Policy.

Granted, India is lagging on several counts. When compared with its glorious past boasting pioneering innovations from the likes of Sushruta (the father of modern surgery) and Nagarjuna (metallurgy), India has hardly had any noticeable technological marvels in its recent history.

But is the problem with the country’s IP regime? Or does the malaise lie elsewhere? Could it be cultural, where parents put undue pressure on their children for that fat salaried job, as opposed to a risky entrepreneurial venture? The policy advocates that IP be taught in schools and colleges. But why? What we need in schools and colleges are courses on creativity, not on IP. Even if we lack resources to impart specific courses on creativity, let’s at least ensure that we don’t stand in the way of a natural flowering of creativity in our children. A truth tellingly captured by Mark Twain’s sentiment: “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.” And one that is now being controversially tested by Peter Thiel (PayPal’s legendary founder) who pays college students to drop out of college and run risky ventures.

Unfortunately, notwithstanding some of its praiseworthy proposals, such as expedited examination, an IP exchange and the proposal to encourage Corporate Social Responsibility funds into open innovation, this much-awaited IP policy is terribly short-sighted.

Many decades ago, a two-member committee (headed by Justice N.R. Ayyangar) conceptualised a patent policy that formed the blueprint of the present patent regime. It was one that triggered the remarkable growth of our pharmaceutical industry, enabling it to earn the moniker “pharmacy of the world”. It was a policy that was thoroughly researched, empirically validated and elegantly written in a little over a year.

Compare and contrast that with the present policy that took more than two years and two separate think thanks to come to fruition. One beset with banality, dogged by dogma, rife with ridiculous assertions, lacking in any credible empirical support, and written in language that, at best, mimics a masterful memo from one babu to another.

I began with a paradox. Let me end with one. While proudly proclaiming the slogan “Creative India, Innovative India”, the policy states: “There is an abundance of creative and innovative energies flowing in India.” A sheer pity that none of that abundant creative energy made it to this policy document, rendering it rather dreary.

Shamnad Basheer is the Honorary Research Professor of Intellectual Property Law at Nirma University and the founder of SpicyIP.

Keywords: intellectual property, IPR, intellectual property rights

Source: The Hindu, 18-05-2016