Tuesday, November 02, 2021

Current Affairs-November 1, 2021

INDIA

– Climate Equity Monitor website on global climate policy launched in India

– Culture Ministry launches three competitions to celebrate Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav: Desh Bhakti Geet writing, Rangoli Making and Lori writing

– Nationwide Clean India campaign culminates with Fit India Plog Run

– Plogging is a unique activity that combines fitness and cleanliness, in which participants collect litter while jogging

– 146th birth anniversary of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel celebrated as National Unity Day

– 260 ITBP personnel awarded special operation medal for service during eastern Ladakh standoff

– Union Minister Dr Jitendra Singh dedicates ‘Sardar Patel Leadership Centre’ to the Nation at LBSNAA (Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration) Mussoorie

– U.S. returns 250 antiquities to India worth an estimated $15 million

ECONOMY & CORPORATE

– Customers can now subscribe to Atal Pension Yojana via Aadhaar eKYC: Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA)

– Amit Shah, Union Minister of Home Affairs and Cooperation launches the “Dairy Sahakar” scheme for cooperatives at Anand, Gujarat during the 75th Foundation Year celebrations of Amul

– Finance Ministry approves proposal by the Board of Trustees of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) to provide 8.5% rate of interest for the deposits for 2020-21

– Former SC judge Justice Ashok Bhushan appointed as Chairperson of NCLAT (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal)

– Former HC judge Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar appointed as President of NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal)

WORLD

– PM Modi, French President Emmanuel Macron decide to expand Indo-Pacific partnership

– Leaders of G20 countries endorses global minimum tax of 15% on multinational corporations at Rome Summit

– G20 leaders agree on limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius target at Rome Summit

– World Cities Day observed on Oct 31

Why Mizoram vs Assam is a BJP project to ‘integrate’ northeast gone wrong

Assam-Mizoram violence is an outcome of BJP trying too hard to ‘integrate’ distinct northeastern states. This has unleashed latent regionalism.

To understand why tiny Mizoram and Assam are fighting for territory with machine guns, we need to raise five questions. In the answers would lie the nub of the issue.

First, why does Assam have a major, contentious territorial dispute with four of the six northeastern states it shares borders with but not the remaining two? At least not any substantive ones. Here’s a counter question. Why did India have substantive border disputes with almost all its neighbours, and especially those that came into being after Partition?

The explanation is that just as Pakistan was carved out of India, and the boundary with Nepal was inherited from British times, four of Assam’s six neighbours were carved out of Assam between 1963 and 1972.

Just as border lines between India and its new neighbours were drawn hurriedly and casually by an outside power, the British, the boundaries of the new northeastern states were drawn by civil servants in New Delhi. If anything, the process might have been even more relaxed because, unlike Radcliffe, in this case the lines were only being drawn within the map of India, between our states. Mostly, the legacy boundaries from the British times were followed.

The current Mizoram-Assam row is a good example. In 1972, when Assam’s district of Lushai Hills was carved out as the Union Territory of Mizoram (it became a full state in 1987), North Block used the last district boundaries drawn by the British in 1933. Here is the rub. The British had also drawn another boundary for the same region in 1875 that gave some of the territory to the Mizos which was later denied in 1933. That first demarcation was also under a law, Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation of 1873. The answer to the first question, therefore, is there is a nasty inherited legacy of a hasty division, like the Partition of the subcontinent.

Here is our second question then: Why did the line shift in 1933? What are the Mizos and the Assamese fighting about? They accept the original, 1875 line because they say their tribal elders and chiefs were consulted. In 1933, no such nicety was followed. It could be that by that time a lot of British commercial interest had developed in the flatter, or gently sloped land next to Lushai Hills because many tea gardens had come up here.

The Assamese, on the other hand, have a strong legal and moral claim because they say they can only go by boundaries officially inherited. Also, that they were large-hearted in letting their massive state being Balkanized like this in the national interest. This is also the reason why such intense border issues do not fester between Assam, Tripura and Manipur. Because those two were already territorial entities by themselves and not created by dividing Assam.

The third question is, why have some of these border disputes, so latent for several years, come alive now? And why so, when one political party, that rules India with an overwhelming majority in Delhi, also rules all of the northeast? Either directly, as in Assam and Tripura, or in a coalition (Manipur), through a leveraged buyout (Arunachal) or through ‘treaty’ allies: Meghalaya, Nagaland and Mizoram.

We need to note, however, that even in the past the worst of the violent border clashes — mostly between Assam and Nagaland — had taken place when the same party, the Congress, was in power in both states. The last big one, that saw 41 killed in Merapani Bazar village in 1985, was when Hiteswar Saikia was chief minister in Guwahati and S.C. Jamir in Kohima.

The answer is, simply, the smaller state syndrome. The same reason for which India’s neighbours harboured such anger over disputed borders, and we aren’t just talking about (West) Pakistan. Although a deep conspiracy theory is also believed there that Mountbatten conspired with Nehru to get Radcliffe to give India Punjab’s Gurdaspur district. But for that “diabolical act”, India would have had no direct access to Jammu & Kashmir. Please don’t misunderstand this for my seeing any justification here. There is none. We are also making a limited point that the smaller, newer states carved out of old, big ones usually harbour such grouses. Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya and Arunachal have similar ‘regrets’.

The fourth question then. Why was the BJP, its home ministry in North Block, and its anointed grand vizier, if not the czar of the northeast, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, not able to foresee and prevent it?

Why is it now not able to blow the whistle, flash red cards, halt the ‘play’ and send everyone home? How come both state governments are issuing statements threatening each other’s forces and citizens worse than nations at war? How come Assam has now issued this incredible travel advisory asking its people not to visit Mizoram because they might not be safe?

Ilived in the northeast to cover it in the most troubled period of 1981-83 when four insurgencies were raging and Assam was so paralysed that even a barrel of its crude oil could not travel in the pipeline to the refinery in Barauni, Bihar. Never was such an advisory issued by anyone. Never over Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab at the height of terror. Never in India. In 2021, we have established a national first and it is an embarrassment.

I thought that when I went to Merapani in 1985 to cover the Assam-Nagaland clashes and found the BSF separating the two police forces, and guarding the border with BoPs (Border Outposts) as it sets up along international frontiers, I had seen the worst. How could there be BoPs between our states? This goes to another level now. To be even-handed, we need to also mention the Mizoram MP K. Vanlalvena speaking outside Parliament threatening that the Assamese will be killed. Central forces are already patrolling this ‘border’ now.

We come to our fifth, and last question. Where has India been able to settle its disputed borders and why? India, through a process that began between Manmohan Singh’s UPA and Sheikh Hasina’s government, and carried forward magnanimously by the Modi government, settled its land and maritime boundaries with Bangladesh. Several decades ago, Indira Gandhi had similarly settled the Katchatheevu island dispute with Sri Lanka. In each case, the larger neighbour showed generosity and large-heartedness, not cussedness or dadagiri. That answers the question. It would never happen if India had approached this like the Big Brother.

When we net all these answers off, we arrive at a set of conclusions as to what has gone wrong in the northeast. First, the BJP has erred in seeing it as a monolith, just because it rules all. These are seven distinct states, each with a strong sense of regionalism, ethnicity, and a relaxed view of Indian nationalism. The BJP is trying too hard to ‘integrate’ these. In the process it is trying to mend what ain’t broke. This has awakened sleeping regionalism.

Next, following the same integrative approach it set up an organisation like NEDA. Compare it with, say, the debate over the creation of the Chief of Defence Staff, or now theatre commands in the armed forces. The IAF and Navy are a fraction of the Army. But they won’t concede it supremacy just because of its numbers. You have to negotiate, share space, reassure the smaller partners. Not give them one centralised command system and a commander.

Finally, these small states were created for three reasons: One, because they felt out of sight, out of mind, by the Assam government in faraway Shillong then. Two, to address their insecurities about being overwhelmed by outsiders and losing their identity. And three, to give the tribal elites their own share in power. This was impossible for them in a combined Assam where their numbers were in low single-figure percentages. Even today, the population of all six neighbours adds up to 1.55 crore, which is about 40 per cent of Assam.

They’ve always resented Assam as the big brother. They didn’t want to be dominated by Delhi nor by Dispur. On top of which, the BJP has given them a regional commander-in-chief of sorts in the Assam chief minister. This is impractical, unwise and unsustainable.

Shekhar Gupta is Editor-in-Chief and Chairman, ThePrint

Source: The print, 31/10/21

Justice now depends on technology,’ said SA Bobde. Indian judiciary has miles to go

Legal acumen doesn't translate to tech competence. We need adequate training to transit from paper briefs to screens.

Former Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde said in his farewell address, “Access to justice now depends on access to technology.” Technological transformations in the Indian judicial ecosystem, which were brought about in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, have received both praise and criticism from the public. The courts’ inability to function physically pushed them to explore these technological capabilities in order to dispense justice. The Supreme Court acted promptly, issuing a set of guidelines for video conferencing to reduce physical interaction through a suo motu writ petition.

Other major technology-driven reforms included e-filing of petitions, virtual hearings, and live streaming of court proceedings. Data from the e-committee of the Supreme Court reveals that as of 30 June 2021 (for an average of three months), 40,43,300 and 74,15,989 lakh cases were dealt with through video conferencing by the high courts and the district courts, respectively. The e-committee drafted model rules defining the contours of these reforms, indicating that the Indian judiciary in the post-pandemic days is likely to be a hybrid of physical and virtual courts.

While these changes are a welcome step towards improving the efficiency of the system, it is critical to bear in mind that technology is not an elixir for the problems affecting the judiciary. It will bring with it a series of challenges that may make justice even more inaccessible for the common (wo)man.

Digital divide at Bar and Bench

Differential access to devices and technological infrastructure, bandwidth and connectivity issues, and varying levels of comfort and know-how in the use of technology are some of the challenges that affect all the stakeholders in the judiciary, especially those working closely with the district courts in rural parts of India. Preliminary findings from the ongoing survey of trial courts conducted by the office of the Chief Justice of India reveal that only 27 per cent of the courtrooms in the subordinate courts have computers on the judge’s dais and 10 per cent have no access to the Internet. This implies that most courts, especially in the district judiciary, are currently not equipped to function virtually.

Ever since the imposition of the first lockdown in March 2020, the Bar Council of India has expressed concerns over the deep-rooted inequality in access to technology — depriving advocates from certain demographics of their livelihood. A survey conducted by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy of 2,800 advocates across eight high courts revealed that there exists a large pay gap between the earnings of entrants and senior advocates in the litigation profession. Eighty per cent of practising advocates, who were part of the pilot survey in Delhi, responded that advocates with up to two years of practice earn anywhere between Rs 5,000 and Rs 20,000 monthly. Shockingly, 40 per cent of young advocates from the High Courts of Allahabad, Bombay, Kerala, Madras, and Patna earn only between Rs 2,000-5,000 monthly, while 50 per cent from the Calcutta High Court said that they earn less than Rs 10,000 a month.

This gives a realistic picture of what could likely be the state of affairs of advocates who practise in semi-urban or rural areas. It is unfair that the system expects these advocates to have access to the Internet, advanced digital equipment, and keep themselves abreast of the latest technological developments in the ecosystem. Undoubtedly, this results in litigation being dominated by a handful of elite advocates who have the privilege to log in from the comfort of their homes or chambers and attend hearings on multiple windows across different high courts and the Supreme Court simultaneously.

Connectivity and technological competence

Robust Internet connection and superior video conferencing facilities are other critical requirements for an uninterrupted virtual court proceeding. The 103 report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee identifies connectivity divide or access to broadband Internet as roadblocks to digital courts. Even the district judiciary in Delhi was unable to provide adequate bandwidth, network-attached storage, and routers for conducting virtual hearings. The high court had to direct the government to procure the necessary hardware to ensure access. The issue is not just confined to the courts, but extends to a substantial number of litigants and advocates as well, who are vulnerable to being excluded from the process of justice delivery due to heterogeneity in Internet penetration.

The last in this genre of challenges is the large proportion of judges, court staff, and advocates who do not have sufficient knowledge and skill to use technology. Legal acumen does not necessarily translate to technological competence, and it is vital that adequate training be imparted to ease the transition from traditional paper briefs to screens and systems.

A coordinated effort to address a gamut of issues

Access to foundational infrastructure, stable Internet connection, and the ability to use technology in the conventional work routines are only some of the teething problems that the justice system is facing. Ensuring secure video and audio conferencing without compromising the privacy of the litigants and adhering to the ‘open court’ principles are key challenges that will need the system’s due attention. On the criminal justice side, the judiciary has another gamut of issues to consider while integrating its processes with technology.

Better coordination between the judiciary and the government concerning the allocation of funds and procurement of necessary hardware and inclusion of experts to design and build the standards and specifications for the software to enable the digital transformation of the judiciary at all tiers are urgent requirements. The road ahead does not look easy unless all the stakeholders cooperate to overcome bureaucratic hurdles, prioritise funding to address the foundational problems, and build systems that are inclusive to ensure better access to justice.

Reshma Sekhar is Senior Resident Fellow with the Justice, Access and Lowering Delays in

Source: The Print, 1/11/21

Monday, November 01, 2021

Quote of the Day

“Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it.”
Mahatma Gandhi

“आपका कोई भी काम महत्त्वहीन हो सकता है, किंतु महत्त्वपूर्ण तो यह है कि आप कुछ करें।”
महात्मा गांधी

Economic and Political Weekly: Table of Contents

Vol. 56, Issue No. 42, 16 Oct, 2021

Editorials

Tax Privileges Undermine Tax Equity

Comment

NEET: Eligibility for What and Entrance for Whom?

Yazhini P M

From the Editor's Desk

A Differential Value of Compensation

Gopal Guru

From 50 Years Ago

From 50 Years Ago-Corruption in Railways: Matter Closed?

Law and Society

The New Judicial Amendment to SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

Ram Kishor Soren

Commentary

Changes in Planning Methodology - Impact on Local Self-government Institutions in Kerala

Ajil Mankunnummal

Insight

Extreme Flooding Events and Land Cover Change - An Empirical Assessment of Western India

Aniket Navalkar

Book Reviews

Hindustani Music in Mumbai

Ratnakar Tripathy

Writing Histories of Regions in Premodern India

Preeti Gulati

Special Articles

Global Unemployment and Inequality during 1991–2019 - Reflections from Secondary Data

Ranjit Singh Ghuman, Rajeev Sharma

Waste Management and Cleanliness in Cities - Linking Expenditure with Service Delivery and Its Performance

Shishir Gupta, Rishita Sachdeva

Gender Budgeting for Sustainable Development in India

Soma Kundu

Current Statistics

Letters

Children to the Rescue in Odisha

Bhisma Kumar

Perils of Oral Cancer in India

Bharat Dogra