Treatment of Rohingya refugees by Modi government display a discriminatory attitude towards Muslims

Sending Rohingya back would mean violating the right to life, constitutional morality.

In a significant ruling on the January 23 in The Gambia v Myanmar, the International Court of Justice held that the authorities in Myanmar must take steps to protect its minority Rohingya population from genocide. Taking note of the UN fact finding mission on Myanmar and various General Assembly resolutions, the world court ruled that Myanmar shall take all measures to prevent the killing of members of the Rohingya population or causing any bodily or mental harm to them.

This world court order ought to have significant moral and legal implications for the pending case in the Indian Supreme Court (SC), which challenges the government’s proposed deportation of Rohingya refugees from India and seeks state amenities for their dignified existence. Not only is the principle of non-refoulement or not sending people back to a place where they are being persecuted — a Right to Life, Article 21, guarantee — available to all persons within India whether citizens or otherwise, this principle has been elevated to a jus cogens or non-derogable norm of international law.

Any national security exception to this principle must be rigorously and carefully proved. Infringements of Article 21 must satisfy the procedural and substantive due process test of being “fair, just and reasonable”. Refoulement does not. It is arbitrary, discriminatory, and abhorrent to constitutional morality. It is arbitrary because the policy has been decided capriciously, as a sudden volte-face to long-established policy. Discriminatory, because the only credible explanation for the volte-face is that the Rohingya are mostly Muslim. Such treatment of refugees is abhorrent to constitutional morality as it violates the absolute right to freedom from torture and non-refoulement.

Explained: How Rohingya issue reached ICJ, what its ruling means for Myanmar

Though India has not signed the Convention on the Status of Refugees, 1951, it has in place a Standard Operating Procedure of 2011, to deal with foreigners who call themselves refugees, who may be granted long term visas (LTV), if it is found that prima facie their claim is justified on account of persecution on the basis of race, religion, sex, nationality, ethnic identity, membership of particular social group or political opinion. Based on this, the MHA started issuing LTVs to persons recognised as “refugees” by the government or UNHCR. These included people from various countries, religions or ethnicities. However in 2015 and 2016, this government amended The Passport (Entry into India) Rules and the Foreigners Order, exempting Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian illegal migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, seeking shelter in India due to religious persecution, from the consequences of non-compliance with the provisions of the Passport Act, 1920 and the Foreigners Act, 1946. These discriminatory notifications conspicuously omit Muslim refugees and became the precursor for the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) passed in 2019. In the last significant hearing in the Rohingya case in October 2018, the SC refused to stay the deportation of seven Rohingya men detained in Assam since 2012, despite constitutional protections, humanitarian obligations and binding international law commitments. This resulted in the first return of refugees to Myanmar since the outbreak of the extreme violence. The government of India, in a brief affidavit claimed that Myanmar had accepted the refugees as “citizens” and the men had orally agreed to be repatriated. The SC sadly refused to interfere in the deportation despite these claims being grossly incorrect, since the men were denied access to legal counsel or to the UNHCR to determine whether their consent was freely expressed. Media reports from Myanmar later claimed that these men had not been given citizenship, as our government swore on affidavit, but the controversial National Verification Cards (that does not recognise their ethnicity).

The treatment of Rohingya refugees by this government, read along with the notifications amending the Passport Rules and Foreigners Order of 2015-2016, and the CAA, all display a discriminatory and hostile attitude towards Muslims. With the SC nearly abdicating its responsibility in protecting persecuted ethnic minorities fleeing genocide by allowing for their refoulment in October 2018, the consequences on the Rohingya population in India could be serious.

This article first appeared in the print edition on February 21, 2020, under the title ‘The Right To Not Return’. Bhushan and Dsouza are counsels for the Rohingya refugees in the Supreme Court of India. 

Source: Indian Express, 21/02/2020

It is a Brilliant Beam of Light

The Shivalingam is oval in shape, indicating no beginning and no end. Similarly, creation also has no beginning and no end. There are many levels to it: some apparent to the human senses and some that are beyond its spectrum and, hence, incomprehensible by the five senses. This is one of the main reasons why the philosophy behind the lingam is not understood to the full extent, by many people. In order to reveal the reality of entire creation, Shiva took on the role of Adi Guru and the first shishya became Mata Parvati. To her were revealed the deepest secrets of all the three worlds, basically a quick upgrade that awakened her to her real form of Shakti. It is symbolic of the guru-shishya relationship that a guru upgrades a shishya’s consciousness through the process called Shaktipath. Shivaratri being the merger of Shiva and Shakti, is indicative of the right concentration of energies to pair oneself to delve into the deeper secrets of creation. Mantras given by the guru fructify on this day and the right practices reveal to a shishya the hidden dimensions and give jnana that was incomprehensible otherwise. Basically, one’s faculties get upgraded from very basic processes to more sophisticated ones, taking one to higher dimensions. Learning from a genuine guru, as to how to evolve to be able to understand more complex processes will help the seeker progress on the spiritual path. In this manner, darkness of ignorance is removed to reveal the brilliance of light, symbolised by Shivalingam as an infinite beam of light.

Source: Economic Times, 21/02/2020

Quote of the Day

February 20, 2020

“Look at life through the windshield, not the rear-view mirror.”

‐ Byrd Baggett

“जीवन को गाड़ी के सामने के कांच से देखें, पीछे देखने के दर्पण में नहीं।”

‐ बर्ड बग्गेट्ट

Who was RK Pachauri?

Pachauri was chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change when it shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2007. His legacy as a leading voice in environmentalism was marred by a sexual harassment charge leveled by a junior colleague in 2015.

Former TERI chief R K Pachauri died aged 79 Thursday, after a prolonged cardiac ailment. A recipient of the Padma Vibhushan, Pachauri was rewarded for his work in the fields of science and technology and environmentalism. He was the chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change when it shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2007.

Born on August 20, 1940 in Nainital, Pachauri began his career with the Indian Railways at the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi. He later joined North Carolina State University in Raleigh, United States, where he obtained his PhD along with co-majors in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974. His doctoral thesis was on energy demand forecasting.

In 1982, he founded The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), an independent not-for-profit research institute focused on energy, environment and sustainable development.

His legacy as a leading voice in environmentalism was marred by a sexual harassment charge leveled by a junior colleague in 2015. On February 13, 2015, police registered an FIR after a former TERI employee lodged a complaint against Pachauri, accusing him of sexual harassment, molestation among other offences. On March 1, 2016, police filed a chargesheet against him, saying there was “sufficient evidence” that he had sexually harassed, stalked and threatened the complainant.

After the case came to light, two more women levelled similar allegations against him. Thereafter, a civil suit was filed by Pachauri against media houses, seeking restraint on reporting the issue.

He later had to step down as director general of the organisation, only to take up a specially-created position of executive vice-chairman.

He was subsequently charged under Indian Penal Code sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354A (sexual harassment) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman).

He was cleared of four other charges — IPC sections 354B (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 354D (stalking), 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), 506 (criminal intimidation).

Source: Indian Express, 13/02/2020

Impeachment in the US: How does it work?

The Senate has the "sole power to try all impeachments," meaning that it has the power to convict. When the president is tried, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over proceedings.

US President Donald Trump is set to be the subject of a formal impeachment inquiry — the start of a process that could see him removed from office. DW explains how it all works.

What is it?

Impeachment is a constitutional process whereby Congress brings charges against civil officials of the government who committed alleged crimes.

The founders of the United States gave Congress powers remove from office “the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States” if the accused is convicted of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Simply put, to impeach means to bring charges similar to an indictment in court.

How does it work?

The House has the “sole power of impeachment.” The House Judiciary Committee is usually responsible for impeachment proceedings. The House debates and votes on whether to bring charges by a simple majority of the House’s 435 members. In this role, the House serves as a grand jury bringing charges against an officer.

The Senate has the “sole power to try all impeachments,” meaning that it has the power to convict. When the president is tried, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over proceedings.

Has impeachment ever happened before?

Only two presidents in US history have been impeached: Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. However, neither was removed from office by the Senate. Richard Nixon resigned to avoid a House impeachment vote.

The House has initiated impeachment proceedings more than 60 times. However, only a third of cases resulted in full impeachment. Just 8 officials — all federal judges have been convicted and removed from office.

How would a president be removed from office?

For the president to be removed from office, a two-thirds majority in the 100-seat Senate must vote to convict. If they do, the president must step down. In the case of Donald Trump, his Republican party currently controls the Senate, making it highly unlikely he will be forced out.

Source: Indian Express, 25/08/2019

Integrated Nutrient Management: Soil health cards for sustainable agriculture

Application of fertilisers based on soil testing taken up on a mission mode is creating a quiet revolution

At the dawn of Independence, India was a food deficit nation, largely dependent on imports to feed her people. Faced with famines, stagnant production and rising imports, the adoption of the Green Revolution in the mid-sixties was inevitable. It entailed introduction of high-yielding semi-dwarf wheat and paddy varieties that were responsive to increased application of fertiliser and water.

The leveraging of agricultural research and technology proved successful. India, in 2018-19, produced 284.95 million tonnes (mt) of foodgrains — roughly 3.5 times the pre-Green Revolution level — and that included 23.40 mt of pulses. Moreover, our agriculture has diversified, so much so that production of horticultural crops (fruits and vegetables), at 313.85 mt in 2018-19, exceeded that of foodgrains! The country is today self-sufficient in all major agri-commodities, barring oilseeds.

However, the above output increases have also come at the cost of our natural resources, especially soil and water. Keeping in view the deleterious effects of the rampant and imbalanced use of chemical fertilisers, a unique programme of Soil Health Cards (SHC) was launched by the Central government on February 19, 2015, laying the foundation for evidence-based integrated nutrient management in Indian agriculture. The latest Union Budget for 2020-21 has also laid emphasis on the balanced use of all kinds of fertilisers.

The SHC programme, implemented over the last five years, assesses soil fertility in terms of the availability of key nutrients — primary (nitrogen, phosphorous and potash) as well as secondary (sulphur) and micro (iron, zinc, copper, manganese and boron) — and physical parameters (electrical conductivity, pH and organic carbon). The SHCs issued to individual farmers also carry a prescription of the right dosage of nutrients based on both deficiency and crops grown in the soils of their particular area. In Phase I of the programme (2015-17), 10.74 crore cards were distributed, with another 11.45 crore being issued in Phase II (2017-19). The programme basically advocates judicious use of chemical fertilisers, together with organic manure and bio-fertilisers, in order to improve the health of the soil and its productivity.

The crucial infrastructure requirement for the programme has been provided through the setting up of 429 new static soil testing labs (STL) and strengthening of 800 existing ones, apart from 102 mobile STLs, 8,752 mini-STLs and 1,562 village-level STLs. As a result, the total soil testing capacity has increased from 1.73 crore to 3.01 crore samples per year. The programme itself has evolved into a mission mode project, to instill belief among farmers in the prescriptions and application of fertilisers as per the SHCs issued to them. As a follow-up to the two phases, model villages are now being developed, one in each of the country’s 6,954 blocks. Further, testing at individual holding level is being done, as against grid-based analyses so far, along with SHC-based demonstration of application of fertilisers and farmers’ fairs for raising awareness.

The SHCs are only the first link in ensuring healthy soils and production of safe and nutritious food. The receptivity of farmers to the programme has led to the emergence of ‘Mitti ke Doctor’ (soil health specialists) and even women’s self-help groups that undertake soil testing at village level. Andhra Pradesh currently has ‘Raithu Bharosa Kendras (farmers’ trust centres)’ that offer integrated testing facilities, including of soil. The Mitti ke Doctor of Jharkhand, mainly comprising rural women, are revolutionising the delivery of soil testing and other interventions at the doorstep of farmers, to encourage them to switch to balanced fertiliser and pesticide application for sustainable agriculture without compromising productivity. The SHC programme has also attracted global attention. India is assisting Nepal in setting up soil-testing facilities and capacity building for integrated nutrient management and certified organic farming. These also figure in India’s initiatives in South-South Cooperation focusing on African countries.

The Fertiliser (Control) Order 1985 has been amended from time to time to register new nutrient products and formulations. With growing demand for organic produce, the FCO is now also incorporating bio-fertilisers, organic fertilisers and non-edible de-oiled cakes, in addition to chemical fertilisers. The main sources of bio-fertilisers are microorganisms such nitrogen-fixing azotobacter, phosphate-solubilising bacteria and mycorrhizae fungi that promote uptake of nutrients by plants.

The contribution of chemical fertilisers to greenhouse gases is an important reason for inclusion of organic farming within the National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture under India’s National Action Plan for Climate Change. Nano-fertilisers are another emerging category of products with potential to reduce the requirement of urea and other conventional chemical fertilisers. The nano-nitrogen, nano-zinc and nano-copper introduced by the Indian Farmers’ Fertiliser Cooperative recently for on-field trials are examples of such fertilisers that allow controlled release of nutrients. These can significantly increase nutrient use efficiency and bring down their runoff into groundwater and water bodies in the vicinity of fields.

Another potential tool for water and soil conservation is ‘biochar’, which also converges with the National Bamboo Mission. This high-quality charcoal produced by pyrolysis (decomposition at elevated temperatures) of ‘waste’ bamboo in the absence of oxygen can be used either as such or mixed with organic additives in a suitable ratio. Biochar can enhance crop yields by 5-40%, friendly mycorrhizal fungi by 40%, nutrient retention by 50% and water retention capacity of soils by 20%. It would, thereby, reduce the requirement of irrigation and promote resistance to various fungal and nematode diseases. By enduring in the soil for thousands of years, biochar also helps in mitigation of climate change via carbon sequestration.

In a nutshell, the judicious application of fertilisers based on SHC prescription has multifold benefits in terms of improved soil health, safe food and mitigating climate change. Balanced use will also reflect in reduced water consumption, while at the same time protecting water bodies from run-off pollution. Farmer awareness about balanced fertilisation is being stepped up through the coordinated efforts of the departments of agriculture, cooperation & farmers’ welfare and fertilisers, besides the network of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research’s Krishi Vigyan Kendras. Farmer can, thus, be enabled to fulfill the mantra of ‘Swasth Dhara, Khet Hara’ (if the soils are healthy, the fields shall be green)!

(The writer is Additional Secretary at Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers’ Welfare, Government of India)

Source: Indian Express, 20/02/2020

New repor t sug gests MU prof ’s wife copied from him

 2 chapters in Ra jani Mathur’s thesis a ‘verbatim reproduction’ of MU professor Neera j Hatekar’s original work, says institutional academic integrity panel; recommends re-examination of her MPhil degree

More than two years after being accused of copying excerpts from his wife Rajani Mathur’s MPhil thesis, economics professor Neeraj Hatekar has been given a clean chit by the University of Mumbai’s antiplagiarism committee. The institutional academic integrity panel (IAIP), formed under the order of the University Grants Commission, has instead pointed fingers at Mathur. The panel’s report, submitted in July last year to Vice Chancellor Suhad Pednekar, said that two chapters in Mathur’s MPhil thesis were reproduced verbatim from Hatekar’s PhD thesis. It recommended a reexamination of her MPhil degree. The report is a U-turn on the findings of a high-level probe panel submitted in January 2018, which had said that Hatekar had plagiarised 36 excerpts from Mathur’s work for his thesis, titled ‘Studies in the theory of business cycles with special emphasis on real business cycles and their applications to India’. Mathur submitted her dissertation in May 1993, six months before Hatekar did. The new committee, headed by Pro Vice Chancellor Ravindra Kulkarni, sent its findings to Vinish Kathuria, professor of economics at IIT-Bombay, to double-check them. In his report to the IAIP, Kathuria said Hatekar “did the work earlier and also wrote it earlier”. He pointed to similarities between two mimeographs (unpublished academic papers) and Hatekar’s PhD thesis. The mimeographs were written at least a year before submission of the thesis. “Both these working papers are for chapter 2 [of the PhD thesis], for which there is similarity. This implies that there is no plagiarism done by the author of the PhD thesis (sic),” said Kathuria. The IAIP report said a majority of the contents of chapters 5 and 6 in Mathur’s thesis was a “verbatim reproduction” of Hatekar’s “original work” in chapter 2 of his thesis. Noting that Hatekar typed out his wife’s entire MPhil thesis, it said, “He was fully aware of the contents of chapters 5 and 6, which constitute Hatekar’s original work. He ought to have taken due care in chapter 2 of his own thesis.” Since chapters 5 and 6 form a substantial portion of Mathur’s research, the panel pressed for a reexamination of her MPhil degree. “…whether the same (the two chapters) or remainder of her thesis can be treated as original contribution by Mathur needs to be verified… There is no original contribution by way of research by Mathur in chapters 5 and 6 with justifications as to acceptance or critique to the extracts taken from Hatekar’s research. In view of this, the awarding of the MPhil degree to Mathur on the basis of her dissertation/thesis attracts suspicion and deserves to be dealt with appropriately,” it said. Hatekar, who enjoys a cult status among students, admitted that he had typed his wife’s dissertation. “You must remember that in 1993, very few people had access to computers with a word processing software. Getting the typing work done professionally was very expensive. I had access to a computer and could also type. Hence, I did it. I, of course, was fully aware of the use of my work in her dissertation. She has, as far as I am concerned, adequately acknowledged it.” Insisting that he has no complaint about Mathur using his work in her dissertation, he questioned the need to put her MPhil degree under scrutiny. “I, as the author of the original piece, have no complaints,” he said, adding that he is yet to get a copy of the new report. Hatekar has guided 11 PhD students, has won two fellowships from the UK’s Cambridge University and has published several academic papers. In 2014, hundreds of students skipped classes in protest against his suspension for speaking out against the university. For many weeks, till his suspension was revoked, he held classes on the road outside the university’s main gate. Mirror reached out to Mathur and Pednekar. Neither of them responded. The plagiarism probe was initiated in November 2017 on the basis of a complaint by Swati Vora, an assistant commerce professor at Rizvi College.

Source: Mumbai Mirror, 20/02/2020