https://www.facebook.com/groups/486074261542177/

IBPS PO & CLERK V Tamilnadu

THE HINDU NEWS PAPER EDITORIAL SECTION FROM SEP 1 TO SEP 10/2015

===========================================================================

Irrational violence

The most striking commonality among the murders of rationalists Narendra Dabholkar (in Pune, August

2013), Govind Pansare (in Kolhapur, February 2015) and M.M. Kalburgi (in Dharwad, August 2015) is not

the modus operandi — motorcycle-borne men shooting to kill and speeding away — but the intolerance

and hatred toward their strong views on religion and superstition that the acts reflect. Though

investigators have found no substantive leads in any of these cases yet, and the killers’ motives remain

unclear, there is little doubt that the three rationalists had provoked religious fanatics and sectarian

elements in a deeply conservative society. What is particularly worrying is that the killings have been

meant as a warning to other writers and intellectuals who may dare to question established belief

systems. Activist-writer Bharat Patankar recently received hate letters asking him not to go the

‘Dabholkar-Pansare way’, and holding out a warning that it would be his turn next. Pansare himself had

received threats after the killing of Dabholkar for opposing superstitious beliefs. Kalburgi too had come

under pressure for his writings against religious beliefs. Often the threat of physical violence is held out

against writers and intellectuals by casteist and communal groups, which are quick to take offence at

anything that criticises matters of faith.

Article 25 of the Constitution not only allows the free profession, practice and propagation of a religion

of one’s choice, but also an individual’s freedom of conscience. Atheists, agnostics and rationalists have

the right to propagate their views on religion as much as believers have the right to spread theirs. What

Article 25 guarantees is not a collective religious right but an individual’s freedom of choice. However,

communal and casteist groups have often asserted they have a right not to be offended by any writing

or work. In effect, they seek a right to thwart or force the withdrawal of the publication of anything that

they imagine gives them cause to take offence. Also, political mobilisation along caste and communal

lines gives such groups an enormous veto power, that strikes at the very root of freedom of speech and

expression. Sadly, whenever freedom of speech is thus threatened, the state, supposedly in the interest

of maintaining law and order, takes the side of the collective mob against the writer/ artist/intellectual.

Surely, the lack of any progress in identifying and nabbing Dabholkar’s killers must have emboldened the

assailants of Pansare and Kalburgi. Whether or not there is a common thread connecting the three

murders, it is imperative that the killers are tracked down. Otherwise, irrespective of the motives, the

killings would have had the effect of silencing other voices of dissent and reason as well.

===========================================================================

A transfer amid a probe

The unceremonious transfer of Rakesh Maria from the post of Mumbai’s Commissioner of Police raises a

set of serious questions. It came at a time when the 1981-batch IPS officer was steering the investigation

in the Sheena Bora murder case towards crucial financial dealings possibly linked to the crime. The

investigators had put together a team of chartered accountants and Economic Offences Wing officers to

probe a complex web of shell companies, and requested the Enforcement Directorate to follow the

money trail. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis signing the transfer order just before leaving for Japan

reinforced the impression that the government did not want Mr. Maria to proceed with the probe.

Though the Home Secretary explained that the transfer was deliberated over two to three weeks and

had nothing to do with the fact that a high-profile figure was caught plotting the murder of her own

daughter, the timing was clearly wrong. Mr. Maria was due for a cadre promotion on September 30

following the retirement of two senior officers. That promotion was advanced by 22 days, while he was

effectively shunted out from the murder investigation. Moreover, appointing Ahmed Javed, who is one

batch senior to Mr. Maria, to the post of Commissioner of Police, and then asking Mr. Maria to continue

“monitoring” the Sheena Bora case as Director-General (Home Guards), has created a situation where

two DG-level officers, who have not been in the best of terms with each other, have been put in charge

of a high-profile case. Though Mr. Maria has indicated that he wouldn’t resign, his “punishment posting”

amounts to dissuading him from pursuing the case in the right spirit.

Such ad hoc measures point to the malaise of the political class seeking to exert control over police

officers and playing a game of favourites. Given the power and prestige that go with it, the post of

Mumbai Police Commissioner is a coveted one. There have been legal battles over it. A cumulative effect

is that the Maharashtra Police are now top-heavy: there are seven posts of Directors-General, of which

four, including that of DG (Home Guards), are insignificant, non-operational postings. In order to end ad

hocism, eliminate lobbying for posts and make top-level appointments the outcome of collective

decisions, a Police Establishment Board was set up. However, Mr. Maria’s transfer was not referred to

the PEB, and the government used its discretionary powers. Only time will tell what impact this reshuffle

may have on the investigation into the Sheena Bora case. But the message the transfer has for Dinesh

Kadam, the investigating officer at Mumbai’s Khar police station where the case is registered, is far from

encouraging.

===========================================================================

Welcome conviction

The conviction of six Army personnel by a court martial in the Machil fake encounter case is an

important step in ensuring the accountability of the armed forces in Jammu and Kashmir and other

States where the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act is in force. The Army opted for a court martial in

this case after the Supreme Court ruled in an earlier case of ‘encounter’ in Pathribal that unlike civilian

investigating agencies, which under AFSPA required prior sanction to prosecute its personnel, the Army

was free to try its members by a court martial. That justice has been done by the court martial is

significant in the larger context of efforts to make the armed forces answerable for their actions in

conflict zones, and to force the withdrawal of special laws that grant impunity to security personnel in

such areas. When police investigations revealed the culpability of its personnel, the Army chose to refer

the issue to a Court of Inquiry, which confirmed the murder-for-reward conspiracy. Three Kashmiri

youths were lured by counter-insurgents in April 2010 with the promise of Army jobs and handed over

to the Army personnel, who shot them at point-blank range in order to earn cash rewards meant for

those who eliminate militants. The counter-insurgents were paid off to deliver the youths to the Army

personnel for the ‘encounter’. Clearly, from beginning to end the ‘encounter’ was part of a cynical and

ruthless project to claim the monetary rewards set aside to eliminate militants.

After the denials and delays in the Pathribal case, the Army did well to hold the rogue elements in its

ranks to account in the Machil instance. The Army top brass knew this was no case of mistaken identity

or bad judgment in a conflict situation. There was simply no excuse to tolerate such elements in a force

claiming to fight militancy and terror. For too long, the default response of the Army has been that its

personnel cannot be subject to the regular processes of the criminal justice delivery system. But

post-Pathribal, cries to do away with AFSPA had grown shriller. The verdict by the court martial in the

Machil encounter case represents the first instance where Army personnel have been convicted for an

instance of human rights abuse in Kashmir; it should thus give civil society greater confidence in the

internal mechanisms of the Army in dealing with deviant behaviour by its personnel. In the long run, the

life sentence handed down to the six men will allow the Army greater room in dealing with militancy in

the Valley. The verdict actually reduces the pressure on Army personnel doing their job in Kashmir and

other conflict zones in India.

===========================================================================

High stakes in Bihar

The Bihar Assembly elections are to be held in five phases from October 12, to let the Election

Commission cope with the challenging logistics involved in the exercise. But it will be an even more

challenging test for the popularity not just of the “grand alliance” of the Janata Dal (United), the

Rashtriya Janata Dal and the Congress led by Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, but also of Prime Minister

Narendra Modi, who is heading the Bharatiya Janata Party-led combine’s campaign. With the BJP having

decided not to project a chief ministerial candidate, Mr. Modi’s personal charisma and his

15-month-long record at the Centre will be under scrutiny. The BJP’s decision is dictated not just by the

failure of Kiran Bedi, who it chose to challenge Arvind Kejriwal in the Delhi Assembly elections earlier

this year, but also by the fact that in caste-dominated Bihar, focussing on any one individual could

alienate those who do not belong to his or her community. Coming as it would less than a year after the

BJP lost Delhi 67-3 to the Aam Aadmi Party, a victory for the grand alliance will give the opposition a

shot in the arm. It will also give a fillip to the formation of similar alliances in the context of other State

elections. A BJP victory here would bolster the belief that the party, and Mr. Modi, remain invincible.

With so much at stake, it is no wonder that both sides are pulling out all the stops. As caste still remains

the determining factor, the grand alliance is looking to Yadavs, Muslims and Kurmis (which is Mr.

Kumar’s own community), who together account for roughly 32 per cent, for core support while working

to break into the BJP’s extremely backward castes (EBCs) votes by pitching the battle as one between

backward and forward castes. The BJP-led combine hopes to secure the backing of the upper castes, the

EBCs and Dalits, even as it leverages Mr. Modi’s life story with the youth and the aspirational class —

who account for over half the votes — to shatter the hold of caste. Mr. Kumar and RJD supremo Lalu

Prasad are friends-turned-rivals-turned-uneasy-partners who between them – along with Mr. Lalu

Prasad’s wife Rabri Devi — have ruled Bihar for some 20 of the last 25 years. If Mr. Lalu Prasad has not

abandoned his image of an old-style socialist if backward-caste leader, Mr. Kumar would like people to

describe him as a development-oriented, modern politician. The two have come together to stave off

political irrelevance, and have so far succeeded in keeping their heads above the water. Mr. Kumar has

even hired for his campaign a publicist-strategist who worked for Mr. Modi in the 2014 general

elections. Now, it is left to Bihar’s 66 million voters to determine the direction of politics not just in this

populous and backward State, but perhaps in the country at large.

===========================================================================

OROP and after

Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar’s announcement that the government has decided to implement the

One Rank One Pension scheme came as a huge relief to the veterans of the armed forces and also to

those now in the services. There remain some wrinkles that need to be ironed out and gaps in clarity

that have to be filled. Most of the doubts are bound to be put to rest when the formal government

order is issued. Credit must be given to the government for bringing a sense of closure to an issue that

has been hanging fire for over 40 years. That the Prime Minister’s Office finally had to step in after

nearly three months of wrenching agitations by the veterans is a telling commentary on the complicated

nature of the issue and the hardened, almost intransigent, positions that had to be addressed. Yet it

must be said that the government could have handled this better. The same could be said about the

timing of the announcement too. By dragging the issue to a point nearly coinciding with the run-up to

the Bihar Assembly elections, Prime Minister Narendra Modi risked pushing it squarely into the political

arena, but he acted deftly. In the time it took for the government to take a decision, the Congress, the

Aam Aadmi Party and sections of the Left were raring to move into the breach by beating a path to

Jantar Mantar where the veterans were on a hunger strike in a determined attempt to goad the

government into action. The veterans should not be allowed to become tools in the hands of politicians.

Indeed, by fielding a former Defence Minister to mount a nit-picking attack after the announcement was

made, the Congress showed a certain inability to grasp the reality. The fact is that the Congress did not

come through when it could have; instead it cited administrative, technical and funding difficulties.

Now that most of the expectations on OROP have been met, a spirit of give-and-take should inform the

rest of the engagement. Maximalist positions should be shunned. A pension review every year is

desirable, but it should be asked if it would really be practical. The announcement of a single-member

judicial committee to examine the interests of retirees may not be the ideal way forward. Given the

complexities involved, the government should rather consider an appropriate advisory committee to

expedite the process. It would be a pity if the opportunity is not utilised to close the perceived gap

between the bureaucracy and the armed services in terms of the compensation package. The

government must meanwhile remain determined to discourage any unrealistic expectations and

demands that may now come up from other sectors following the OROP announcement.

===========================================================================

A blow for gender parity

It took the Delhi High Court to set right last week a largely inexplicable instance of official gender

discrimination: it ruled that the Indian Navy must grant permanent commission to women as well, as the

Army and the Air Force had to do following a 2010 order by a different bench of the same court. Until

now, women could qualify only for the Navy’s Short Service Commission with a tenure of up to 14 years;

this made them ineligible for pension and often unable to find other work they were qualified for,

virtually midway through their working lives. Following the latest ruling, women who qualify for

permanent commission will be able to work until the age of 54, as their male counterparts do. The 19

women who filed petitions before the court argued that they had received the same training as their

male counterparts and worked for a comparable number of years in different departments, but could go

no further for the only reason that they were women. The High Court rightly ruled that it could not

support any provision that would restrain the professional advancement of women. Grant of permanent

commission would allow women to rise in rank along with the men, and gain pay parity.

In the Army, since the grant of permanent commission to women began, 340 women have been granted

such positions, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar recently told Parliament. The latest order will open

the doors for women in the Navy too. However, the Defence Ministry and the armed forces must go

further. For one, the forces must tackle entrenched sexist attitudes towards women that were in

evidence when the Army argued before the Supreme Court against the grant of permanent commission

for them, saying that junior officers from rural areas would not be willing to accept a woman as a leader

in front line situations, or that society was not yet willing to accept women in combat roles. The

proportion of women in India’s armed forces and the police forces is low in terms of global comparative

figures, and recent research indicates that persistent bias is a strong ground that drives women away

from seeking to serve in them. There has been little effort to go the extra distance to increase female

representation: India’s first woman in the Army to receive a gallantry award, Lt. Col. Mitali Madhumita,

had to move the Supreme Court for permanent commission after she was denied it on the ground that

she had earlier turned it down. Suicide rates among women in the forces have also been

disproportionately high, and they do not seem to be getting enough support in coping with the dual

tasks of handling work and family life. India’s armed forces must do more now to transform themselves

into a space of truly equal opportunities.

===========================================================================

The Syrian catastrophe

The shocking image of the lifeless body of Aylan Kurdi, the three-year-old boy who drowned while

fleeing Syria’s Kobani, was a tragic reminder of the humanitarian crisis in the West Asian country. Aylan

and his family had been making a perilous journey through the Mediterranean Sea to reach the Greek

island of Kos. They were not alone. Thousands flee Syria every day as it grapples with one of the greatest

humanitarian tragedies in recent history. More than two lakh people have already been killed in the

four-year-long civil war, according to the United Nations. Around four million people have been made

refugees. Millions of other Syrians are trapped in the war in which nobody appears to be winning,

forcing more people to flee the country. Aylan Kurdi was a victim of this situation. After the image of the

boy lying face-down on a Turkish beach surfaced, several European governments, including that of the

United Kingdom, have agreed to take in more Syrian refugees. While such moves should be welcomed

on humanitarian grounds, it can’t be forgotten that the policies of the very same European governments

towards Syria helped cause the chaos in that country.

Ever since the Syrian civil war broke out in 2011, there were no meaningful international efforts to find a

political solution to the crisis. Instead, regional powers turned Syria into a geopolitical battlefield. Rich

Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar supported different rebel groups against the regime

because they wanted President Bashar al-Assad, an ally of Iran, to be toppled. Turkey, driven by its

regional ambitions, also threw its weight behind the rebels and kept open its long border, through which

fighters could cross into Syria to join the war. Western powers such as the U.S. and Britain joined the

‘regime change’ chorus and offered support to the rebels. This drive failed to oust Mr. Assad, but has

destabilised Syria, leading to the rise of terror groups such as Islamic State. It’s already too late now to

find a political solution. IS controls almost half the country and it is trying to advance into areas

controlled by the regime. If that happens, the humanitarian situation in Syria will worsen, triggering a

further refugee exodus. To stop that from happening, regional heavyweights such as Turkey and Saudi

Arabia and their backers in the West should reverse their policy towards Syria. They should rein in the

rebels they bankroll and directly engage with the Assad regime to push for talks. Mr. Assad has to be

blamed for the excessive use of force against his people. But he still controls the most populous areas of

Syria and rules from Damascus, the seat of power. Mr. Assad clearly has to be an integral part of any

future plan for Syria.

===========================================================================

The gag on Greenpeace

For a while now, Greenpeace has been in the cross hairs of the government, first under the UPA and

now under the BJP, as it championed civil liberties and causes. Its activists have been prevented from

travelling abroad. The non-governmental organisation (NGO) stands accused of concealing and mixing

foreign contributions with local contributions. The latest step by the Ministry of Home Affairs simply

cancelling Greenpeace’s registration was but an expected next stage in the chain of events leading to a

gag that is meant to choke. The obvious assumption is that without funds Greenpeace in India will not

be able to function. This has come even as a petition from Greenpeace seeking release of funds to pay

its staff, and alleging arbitrariness in the government’s action, is before the Delhi High Court. The action

taken under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) — which many NGOs say is a bad

application of a poorly drafted piece of legislation — means Greenpeace will not be able to receive any

foreign donations. The move has made other NGOs vulnerable too; they face a tough choice, of either

complying with the government’s line, or fading out. The media have reported that the invoking of the

provisions of the Act followed certain actions by Greenpeace that were deemed inimical to the

economic interests of the state. Everything from placing advertisements in newspapers to organising

protests against the Kudankulam nuclear plant to anti-nuclear activism, was deemed inimical. Already

there is word of some NGOs trying to tailor their activities to suit the interests of the government. What

can a democratically elected government possibly achieve by enforcing such compliance and

conformity?

Also, it is time to have another look at the FCRA. Passed in 1976 and amended in 2010, it has come in for

criticism not only for the overarching control it seeks to have over people-based movements but also for

the guidelines framed around it. The MHA is now changing the rules, spelling out what NGOs are

required to do, even seeking to scrutinise their social media engagement. Whether the MHA should be

looking into expenditure incurred by an NGO to teach street children, for instance, is a moot question.

There is hypocrisy involved when some political parties are free to receive corporate donations,

especially from abroad, without any questions asked. Equally, all NGOs must respect the law of the land,

maintain transparency and remain above board: admittedly, there are some black sheep. Most of them

comply; some don’t. But that should be no excuse to gag. Civil liberties and free speech go hand in hand.

The government will be ill-advised to trample on these.

=========================================================================

Mentors and agendas

That the Bharatiya Janata Party is organically tied to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is no secret.

Senior BJP leaders constantly reiterate their links with the Sangh Parivar, and RSS sanghchalaks never

tire of offering ‘advice’ and ‘guidance’ to the BJP top brass. A private meeting between leaders of the

two organisations should not ordinarily have caused concern. After all, political, cultural or social

organisations must be free to hold closed-door discussions on policies and programmes. But what took

place at the samanvay baithak, or coordination meeting, between the BJP and the RSS was much more

than an interaction between the party and its ideological mentor. It was not just senior BJP leaders who

were in attendance: Prime Minister Narendra Modi and most of his ministerial colleagues from the BJP

lined up for the meeting that seemed more like an inquisition than an interaction. Why an elected BJP

government feels it is accountable to the secretive RSS is not difficult to fathom, given the history of

Hindutva politics that is sometimes micro-managed through remote-control by the sanghchalaks. But

the meeting is invested with a meaning that goes beyond the political interests of the RSS or the BJP,

and relates to the accountability of an elected government to democratic institutions and processes.

The samanvay baithak is surely an indication of the sense of ownership that RSS sanghchalaks feel over

this government, the first BJP-led government that does not depend on the support of allies. In the 2014

Lok Sabha election, RSS volunteers, in numbers greater than ever before, were involved in the campaign

and fieldwork for the BJP. After the BJP secured a majority, many among them seemed to believe the

government ought to have followed a core Hindutva agenda. But if the BJP managed to extend its

support base beyond its traditional strongholds, it was on account of the party adopting a more inclusive

programme of growth and development. While he did not always rein in Ministers and leaders speaking

the language of religious hatred and communal divisiveness, Mr. Modi was himself all political

correctness. But his participation in the meeting, and his speech — its contents unpublicised — in which

he described himself as an RSS swayamsevak, have again raised doubts about the direction his

government is taking. It is not as if A.B. Vajpayee, the only other Prime Minister from the BJP, did not

have discussions or meetings with RSS leaders while in power. However, a meeting of this kind, with

almost all the Union Ministers from the BJP present with report cards, is unprecedented. Clearly, the RSS

is seeking to appropriate for itself the role of an extra-constitutional super-parliament, accountable to

none but its own sanghchalaks. A coordination meeting of this kind, by whatever name it is called, raises

serious questions about the functioning of the government, about hidden agendas and opaque

decision-making .

===========================================================================

Unravelling of the Janata Parivar

Splits in political parties are the inevitable consequences of their growth and evolution. But the merger

of parties, when it happens, is invariably artificial, forced by the transient expediency of immediate

circumstances. The Samajwadi Party, the Janata Dal(United), the Rashtriya Janata Dal, and the Janata

Dal(Secular) came together under the Janata Parivar umbrella only because they suffered decimation at

the BJP’s hands in the 2014 Lok Sabha election. Other than a common rival, there was little that bound

them together. Now, with the Samajwadi Party pulling out of the ‘grand alliance’ in Bihar with the JD(U)

and the RJD, the Janata Parivar faces the prospect of unravelling. Although the SP does not have much

clout in Bihar, its inclusion in the alliance in the State was crucial in the context of attempts to project a

national-level alternative to the BJP. After the JD(U) and the RJD in Bihar between them took 200 of the

243 seats for contesting in the upcoming Assembly elections, and gave 40 to the Congress, the

expectation was that the SP would be accommodated by the RJD from its quota of seats. But the RJD’s

offer did not go far enough: two from its own quota of 100 seats, and three from that of the NCP, which

had exited the alliance. Now the formation will remain largely Bihar-specific. The SP does not need the

backing of the JD(U) or the RJD or the JD(S) in Uttar Pradesh; the JD(S), similarly, will not benefit in any

manner from the support of the other parties in Karnataka, the only State where it has a substantial

presence. The two parties that really need each other are the JD(U) and the RJD, and only their alliance

is likely to endure, if at all.

What prompted SP supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav to jeopardise the Janata Parivar by walking out of

the alliance in Bihar for the sake of a few seats is unclear. But evidently it was obvious to the SP that the

vision of an alternative to both the BJP and the Congress at the national level was no more than a

chimera. In Bihar, the RJD and the JD(U) wooed the Congress but took the SP for granted. Both the RJD’s

Lalu Prasad and the JD(U)’s Nitish Kumar knew what they were doing: trying to win the election in Bihar

and not worrying about a national alternative to the BJP and the Congress. But in so doing they seem to

have left the SP miffed. Clearly, parties that cannot even come to an understanding on seat adjustment

will not be able to merge into a single entity. The SP’s exit might not point to the success or failure of the

grand anti-BJP alliance in Bihar, but it signals that another 1970s-like Janata experiment at the national

level is doomed to fail.

===========================================================================

Friendly signal

The Union government’s decision to waive, through an amendment to the Income Tax Act, minimum

alternate tax (MAT) liability on capital gains made by foreign portfolio investors (FPIs) and Foreign

Institutional Investors (FIIs) is a welcome move, especially from their point of view. It is in line with the

spirit of the promise in the BJP’s manifesto for the 2014 general elections to put an end to “tax

terrorism”. The announcement and the subsequent instructions issued to the tax department to keep in

abeyance, till the appropriate amendment is carried out, pending proceedings and to not pursue the

recovery of outstanding demands in such cases is a big relief to FIIs. In these times of heightened

uncertainty in the global financial markets, when risk appetite of investors is especially low, the

government’s decisions would serve to restore some of the lost faith of investors in India as an

investment destination that doesn’t resort to “retrospective taxation”. But to further demonstrate its

resolve, the government must also move to rein in the tax department, which had served notices on 68

FIIs for MAT dues adding up to about Rs.600 crore on the basis of a direction from the Authority for

Advance Rulings in 2012 to a Mauritius-based investor Castleton. In 2010, this investor had approached

the Authority seeking a confirmation that it was not required to pay MAT on a transaction it was

planning to execute. The department has been in too many disputes with global companies such as

Vodafone and Cairn, some of which have even dragged India into international arbitration. It has been

said that India’s image as an investment destination has suffered as a result.

The same way as the government has taken a position on and dispelled the uncertainty around MAT, it

must quickly make up its mind and come out with an announcement on another outstanding issue,

concerning participatory notes (P-Notes). India’s indecision on this matter is affecting FIIs. The Supreme

Court-appointed Special Investigation Team has asked regulators to put in place regulations to identify

individuals holding P-Notes and take other steps to curb black money and tax evasion through the stock

market route. P-Notes are offshore derivative instruments that a large number of FIIs use to park funds

in the equity market without disclosing their identity to Indian regulators. The tax authorities suspect

that a huge chunk of these investments could in fact be Indian money masquerading as foreign funds.

The government had said it won’t immediately act on the recommendation after the stock markets

reacted sharply to news on it. But sooner or later it will have to decide what has to be done, given that

action against black money too was a big election-time promise of the BJP. The MAT experience shows

that sooner is better than later.

===========================================================================

Welcome step on oilfields

The government has taken a refreshing and progressive approach with respect to the unutilised natural

resources locked away in the 69 small and marginal oilfields lying with the state-owned exploration

agencies. The Union Cabinet has not only approved the auction of these oilfields to private, and even

foreign, companies, but also initiated a new approach in the licensing and proceeds-sharing

mechanisms. The first step was to move from a profit-sharing mechanism to a revenue-sharing one. This

may appear to be a technical difference, but the effect on the ground is likely to be huge. The

profit-sharing approach meant the government had to pore over the cost details of those undertaking

the exploration, often leading to extended delays and disputes. The revenue-sharing approach is

simpler, and is likely to earn the government more money. Under the new plan, companies will be

allowed to sell crude oil or natural gas at market prices, without any interference from the government.

The revenue and royalty-sharing mechanism will be pegged at this market rate. If companies are forced

to sell at below-market prices, then the government will still get a royalty share pegged at the market

rate. If, however, the company manages to sell at higher-than-market prices, then the sharing

mechanism will be pegged to this higher price. That’s a win-win for the government: less oversight and

an assured minimum income.

The other welcome step has to do with the licensing method. At present, companies need a separate

licence to exploit each of the different hydrocarbon resources in a given field. Under the new scheme,

they will receive a unified licence for all hydrocarbons, including conventional ones such as oil and gas,

and non-conventional ones such as shale oil and shale gas. This goes a long way in the government’s

move towards enhancing the ease of doing business. Apart from that, the simple act of auctioning

oilfields is a step towards weaning India away from oil imports. The Oil Ministry says there are

hydrocarbon resources worth Rs.70,000 crore lying unutilised in these fields. At the current crude price

of $45 a barrel, the production of hydrocarbons from these new fields will be worth around Rs.3,500

crore a year. This may seem like a drop in the bucket compared to India’s total hydrocarbon imports of

Rs.7.6 lakh crore in 2014-15, but every little drop counts. So far, these progressive steps are limited to

the 69 oilfields on the block, but hopefully they will be extended to all the oilfields in the country. With

growth in oil production slowing and natural gas production contracting, there is a sore need for steps

like these to boost domestic production.

===========================================================================

Sport, politics and business

Keeping politics and sport separate is easier said than done. In the Indian sub-continent especially, sport

is heavily coloured by nationalism: for large sections of a game’s fans, every win on the field is an

occasion for display of national pride, and every loss a cause for national despair. Cricket matches

between India and Pakistan have more to do with jingoism and less to do with sport as suspense-filled

drama and spectacle. Some of the flag-waving and chest-thumping patriotic fervour on show is

inevitable as long as sport at the highest level is played in national colours. As George Orwell wrote,

“even a leisurely game like cricket, demanding grace rather than strength, can cause much ill-will”

between the competing nations. In such a context, the calling off of a cricket series between India and

Pakistan is best seen as a disappointment for genuine cricket fans and not as a setback to bilateral

relations. But between two nations which otherwise find it difficult to engage with each other in normal,

structured dialogue, regular sporting relations — not just a rare, one-off cricket series — can do a lot of

good. Sport would then stop being a war by non-violent means.

However, there are factors other than the politics surrounding India-Pakistan relations at play in a

cricket series involving the two countries. There has not been a full bilateral series since the terror

attacks in Mumbai in 2008 — although Pakistan did visit India for a short, limited-over series between

December 2012 and January 2013. But the decision to revive cricket ties had little to do with fostering

better relations or satisfying fans by promoting a marquee rivalry. Pakistan last year agreed to the

International Cricket Council’s revamp, which increased the powers of the Indian, English and Australian

boards, on the condition that it would be part of bilateral series with all the full members. Key to its

change in stance was the promise of financially lucrative cricket with India: the then Pakistan Cricket

Board (PCB) chairman Najam Sethi had said, “It’s very important to play India because it generates a

major chunk of money.” But the memorandum of understanding that the two boards had reportedly

signed to play six bilateral series between 2015 and 2023 faced hurdles much before those created by

the recent diplomatic tension. The host broadcaster for the proposed series in December 2015 was TEN

Sports, which has a deal with the PCB for home series. However, reports of the network having ties with

the Essel Group, which not only has an adversarial relationship with the BCCI but has also threatened to

form a breakaway international league, created issues. Ultimately, what would weigh with the BCCI and

the PCB is not the interest of jingoists or fans, but the power play within the ICC, and the irresistible

draw of commercial sponsorship

=========================================================================

Risky portents in Manipur

The crisis in Manipur stems from the demand to stop ‘outsiders’ from buying land in the State, in a

context where the local population, predominantly the Meiteis, harbours fears of being marginalised.

The valley constitutes only 10 per cent of the State’s geographical area and Meiteis constitute about 50

per cent of the population there. The long-standing demand has been to introduce a system similar to

the Inner Line Permit (ILP) in other northeastern States, or some similar stipulation, to stop in-migration.

But for this to be effective, the State needs to identify the ‘outsiders’ first. But that is a complex issue

anywhere in the northeastern region as the borders are largely porous and the Government of India has

not done enough to check the passage of people across them. One reason this was not done was to

protect the state’s own interest: for a long time now, a section of the immigrants have been engaged to

counter local insurgent groups. But as the demand for an ILP escalated, a cut-off year of 1951 was

determined in the new Bills passed on Monday in order to identify outsiders. However, one of them, the

Protection of Manipur People’s Bill, and two amendments, have been opposed by the tribal

organisations, which claim control of the Manipur Hill districts. These are chiefly groups of Kukis, Mizos

and Chins. They feel insecure as many of them who came to Manipur after 1951 or whose lineage may

not meet the list of criteria set out in the Bills, could now be legally identified as ‘outsiders.’ Many of

them also believe a rumour that the two amendments would be valid in the Manipur Hills districts,

which is untrue.

The issues might not have escalated had the State government consulted the Hill Areas Committee

before passing the Bills in order to clear any misunderstanding. Neither the organisation that had led the

pro-ILP movement nor any of the tribal organisations was approached for any kind of dialogue. The

pro-ILP movement was mostly confined to the Valley districts, while the people in the Hills isolated

themselves, assuming and arguing that they were protected from outsiders under existing laws. As the

tensions grew in the absence of dialogue, political groups added fuel to the fire to try and topple the

Congress-led government and invite President’s Rule. Hence, it is not any genuine fear of becoming

marginalised but realpolitik that is playing out in the hills of Manipur. But from any perspective, this is a

dangerous portent for all the northeastern States. The Centre and the State need to come forward

quickly to engage the people and figure out a solution to the crisis in order that it won’t go out of

control.

===========================================================================

Risky portents in Manipur

The crisis in Manipur stems from the demand to stop ‘outsiders’ from buying land in the State, in a

context where the local population, predominantly the Meiteis, harbours fears of being marginalised.

The valley constitutes only 10 per cent of the State’s geographical area and Meiteis constitute about 50

per cent of the population there. The long-standing demand has been to introduce a system similar to

the Inner Line Permit (ILP) in other northeastern States, or some similar stipulation, to stop in-migration.

But for this to be effective, the State needs to identify the ‘outsiders’ first. But that is a complex issue

anywhere in the northeastern region as the borders are largely porous and the Government of India has

not done enough to check the passage of people across them. One reason this was not done was to

protect the state’s own interest: for a long time now, a section of the immigrants have been engaged to

counter local insurgent groups. But as the demand for an ILP escalated, a cut-off year of 1951 was

determined in the new Bills passed on Monday in order to identify outsiders. However, one of them, the

Protection of Manipur People’s Bill, and two amendments, have been opposed by the tribal

organisations, which claim control of the Manipur Hill districts. These are chiefly groups of Kukis, Mizos

and Chins. They feel insecure as many of them who came to Manipur after 1951 or whose lineage may

not meet the list of criteria set out in the Bills, could now be legally identified as ‘outsiders.’ Many of

them also believe a rumour that the two amendments would be valid in the Manipur Hills districts,

which is untrue.

The issues might not have escalated had the State government consulted the Hill Areas Committee

before passing the Bills in order to clear any misunderstanding. Neither the organisation that had led the

pro-ILP movement nor any of the tribal organisations was approached for any kind of dialogue. The

pro-ILP movement was mostly confined to the Valley districts, while the people in the Hills isolated

themselves, assuming and arguing that they were protected from outsiders under existing laws. As the

tensions grew in the absence of dialogue, political groups added fuel to the fire to try and topple the

Congress-led government and invite President’s Rule. Hence, it is not any genuine fear of becoming

marginalised but realpolitik that is playing out in the hills of Manipur. But from any perspective, this is a

dangerous portent for all the northeastern States. The Centre and the State need to come forward

quickly to engage the people and figure out a solution to the crisis in order that it won’t go out of

control.

===========================================================================

The case against death penalty

The Law Commission of India has taken a historic step by declaring that the abolition of the death

penalty must become a goal for India. It has recommended, for a start, the scrapping of the death

penalty for all crimes except terrorism-related offences and those that amount to waging war against

the state. The Commission’s report on the death penalty declares deterrence to be a myth, based on

extensive research. It makes a clean break with the ‘rarest of the rare’ principle that was laid down in

Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980): that judgment noted that the application of the death penalty

would remain arbitrary and judge-centric and hence would be constitutionally unsustainable. It has

attempted to raise the level of discourse on the death penalty by observing that opposition to it

amounts to objecting to the taking of lives, and not to all punishment as a concept. Retributive justice is

important, it notes, but it must not descend to the level of vengeance, as numerous Supreme Court

decisions that refer to “the conscience of the people” seem to indicate. It has sought a return to the

notions of restorative and reformative justice, and urged a change in tenor, in such a manner that

victims are not made to think that the death penalty is the only, best or ultimate form of punishment.

Most crucially, it has placed the death penalty in the context of India’s flawed criminal justice system,

noting that even safeguards such as the right to appeal and mercy petitions do not provide foolproof

protection from miscarriage of justice, given the uneven and error-prone application of relief.

But the Commission has not gone far enough. By creating an artificial distinction between terror cases

and others despite admitting that there is no penological justification for doing so, it has created an

unfair hierarchy of crime and justice. It notes the death penalty is no deterrent for even a terrorist.

Some of the most egregious instances of miscarriage of justice that it cites as an indictment of India’s

criminal justice system relate to terrorism-related cases; the 2002 Akshardham temple attack case, for

instance, in which the death penalty was imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court,

was based on what the Supreme Court later ruled was wholly fabricated evidence. The concerns such

instances raise about the death penalty disproportionately affecting the poor and marginalised are more

sharply in evidence in terrorism cases — 93.5 per cent of those on death row in terrorism cases are

Dalits or those from the religious minorities. By holding itself back from recommending a total abolition,

the Commission has put the ball in Parliament’s court. The government and the principal opposition are

unlikely to support such an abolition at this point. It can only be hoped Parliament will complete the

good work the Law Commission has begun.

===========================================================================

Europe’s refugee crisis

“I pity the poor immigrant, who wishes he’d stayed at home,” sang the American folk-singer Bob Dylan.

That verse today finds extra resonance in the scarring images of forced human displacement across

treacherous sea and land routes into the promised land of Europe. Thousands leave every day from the

war-ravaged and economically broken countries of northern Africa, Syria and West Asia. The harrowing

images of mass death captured by the media — the most recent, the 800 people feared drowned when

the boat they travelled in capsized in the Libyan waters south of the Italian island of Lampedusa in April,

or the 71 fleeing Syrians found dead in a truck in Austria last week — point to the magnitude of the

human catastrophe that is unfolding across this part of the world. The statistics on recent migration are

staggering. According to the UNHCR, the United Nations refugee agency, 59.5 million people were

forcibly displaced in 2014, a figure that rose sharply in 2015. A record number of 1,07,500 migrants

reached the borders of the European Union last month. The Migrants Files, a collaborative project of

journalists, claims the number of refugees who died or went missing while making the crossing is 3,016

this year alone. Between 2000 and today the number is 30,817.

A practical response to the refugee crisis has not, regrettably, been forthcoming from the governments

of those countries most affected by the recent influx, namely those of the European Union and Britain.

They have tried to turn the focus on criminal trafficking rings that conduct risky refugee escape

operations, even as they tighten their own borders. By contrast, there is the laudable spirit shown by

organisations, groups that have conducted perilous rescue operations on the high seas, and provided

refugees shelter and timely support despite their constrained capabilities and remit. The political and

economic destabilisation of countries from where the refugee flow is the greatest — those in West Asia,

Libya and Syria — are due in large part to western military intervention carried out on the strength of

promises to bring democracy to peoples portrayed as the victims of totalitarian rule. Not only has that

promise been belied, the doors have been closed on people who now desperately seek to escape the

anarchy and civil breakdown of those countries, which were once relatively stable. A scheme of

mandatory quotas to take in refugees, proposed by the European Commission, has met with stiff

opposition from several member-states. Germany has given asylum to over 200,000 refugees last year,

and Britain to just 32,000. The EU and Britain must adopt a more humane and responsible asylum and

immigration policy on the refugee crisis — or be consumed by it.

==========================================================================

The government gives in

In letting the land acquisition ordinance lapse, the Union government must have hoped to come across

as an administration that is responsive to public criticism and acknowledges key stakeholders’ concerns

on important issues. But after having tried hard to sell the amendments as a pro-reforms measure, and

to paint the opposition as a misinformed and obstructionist lot, the Modi government may find it

difficult to gain any political mileage from the decision. Indeed, opposition parties are already claiming

credit for having forced the government’s hand. And, in contrast, attempts by Union Ministers and

leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party to present the decision as being in the interest of farmers appear

to be insincere and hollow. Too much had already been invested in the growth and reforms agenda for

the government to now portray the decision as pro-farmer. The confusion in the government’s mind

over the legislation showed up in more ways than one. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley and BJP president

Amit Shah described the decision as pro-farmer, in part acknowledging that some of the provisions were

indeed anti-farmer. On the other hand, Prime Minister Narendra Modi insisted that “rumours” had been

spread on the land bill, indicating that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with it.

The decision to let the ordinance lapse was the culmination of a series of measures to salvage at least

parts of the legislation. The government diluted it in some respects before getting the amendments

passed in the Lok Sabha in March 2015. Originally, it had exempted five types of projects — involving

defence, rural infrastructure, affordable housing, industrial corridors and infrastructure and social

infrastructure — from the consent clause in the 2013 Act brought forward by the UPA regime. It then

dropped the ‘social infrastructure’ component. After seeking to exempt the five categories from the

social impact assessment requirement, the Modi regime added a condition that it should first be

ensured that only the minimum extent of land was being acquired before applying the exemption. It

sought to make the Bill more acceptable by introducing a norm that one person in every affected family

be given employment. It dropped a controversial amendment that would have enabled the acquisition

of land for private hospitals and educational institutions. Later, it considered giving State governments

the flexibility to have their own acquisition laws. Even the idea of extending the benefits of the Act to 13

laws — pertaining to railways, highways and such other projects — through an executive order is only in

consonance with the original law that held back their inclusion till January 1, 2015. Thus, from the

beginning the government, which on other issues was tough and determined, appeared unsure and

defensive on the land ordinance. It was inevitable that in the end it had to give in.

========================================================================

Act against right-wing groups

Sunday’s murder in Dharwad of the outspoken Kannada scholar, M.M. Kalburgi, is tragic and alarming. It

is the first such instance in Karnataka, which has a tradition of free speech and a record of outspoken

scholars and writers. Kalburgi, a Sahitya Akademi award winner and an authority on Vachana literature,

was known for his sharp criticism and questioning of superstitious beliefs, and received a death threat

from the leader of a fringe right-wing group last year. Since June 2014 he was given police protection

but some months ago he requested that it be withdrawn. While the identity of the two assailants, and

their motive, are yet to be conclusively established, the nature of the threats against him has led

investigators and the intelligentsia to suspect the role of fringe groups. This, especially given the

backdrop of the murder of rationalist writer Narendra Dabholkar in 2013, and of CPI activist Govind

Pansare in 2015, both in Maharashtra. In all the three cases the assailants were motorcycle-borne, and

shot from point-blank range.

While hasty conclusions on the latest murder would be imprudent, there is no denying that fringe

right-wing groups have created an atmosphere of intolerance to outspoken writers and academics who

question religious practices and myths, thereby putting pressure on freedom of speech and expression.

Soon after Kalburgi’s murder, a case was filed by the police in Mangaluru against a Bajrang Dal activist

who tweeted that the “next” victim would be the Kannada writer K.S. Bhagwan, and the activist was

arrested. The social media have amplified such threats, which are acerbic and abusive in nature and

typically target writers or academics who question ideologies and religious beliefs. There is enough

evidence of the use of brute force by these fringe groups to enforce their points of view. There is a need

to crack down on these groups which profess violence. It is important to use for some of these outfits

the same yardstick as is used for other religion- and ideology-based extremist groups. Unfortunately, a

majority of the cases filed against them or their leaders for inflammatory and abusive remarks and even

violent acts do not result in convictions, and that emboldens them further. It is also crucial to monitor

and promptly curb threats made through social media. These actions are needed to ensure that daring,

fierce and tempered academic and literary opinion continues to be freely expressed without fear of any

retribution. Whether or not fringe groups were involved in Kalburgi’s murder is immaterial here.

===========================================================================