- Front Page / NATIONAL [The Hindu]
- Editorial/OPINION [The Hindu]
- ECONOMY [The Hindu]
- RBI tells banks to ensure 40% of cash supply reaches rural areas
- Union Budget to be presented on February 1
- Indian Express
- Live Mint
Click here to Download 9 PM Daily Current Affairs Brief PDF (4th Jan. 2017)
Front Page / NATIONAL [The Hindu]
[1] SC asks list of firms with debts over 500 cr.
The Hindu
Context
Centre asked to provide data on cases pending in Debt Recovery Tribunals for over 10 years
What has happened?
Anxious over the rise in bad loans, the Supreme Court has ordered the government to provide “empirical data” on cases pending in Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) for over 10 years and the list of corporate entities with debts in excess of ₹500 crore
What is a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)?
The Debts Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRATs) were established under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act (RDDBFI Act), 1993 with the specific objective of providing expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to Banks and Financial Institution. Presently 34 DRT’s and 5 DRAT’s are functioning in India.6 new DRTs are also being established at Bengaluru, Chandigarh, Dehra Dun, Ernakulam, Hyderabad and Siliguri
Directions by the Bench
- Detailed report on DRTs: Bench directed the government to provide a complete and detailed report on whether DRTs and their appellate bodies are well-equipped, as far as infrastructure and manpower, to take on defaulting corporate entities which have reneged on loans and render timely justice
Backdrop
The court referred to how the new Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debt Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Bill, 2016 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on May 11, 2016 with the express purpose of combating pendency in bad loans cases
- The Bill was referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The panel presented its report to the LS on July 22, 2016. Eventually, a law has been enacted by Parliament and published on August 16 last year. But the SC expressed its scepticism on whether the new legislation by itself would be able to solve the rising pendency in bad loan cases in overburdened DRTs.
Editorial/OPINION [The Hindu]
[1] Two takes on democracy
Context
Article is based on the recent Supreme Court judgement in which it held that an appeal for votes during elections on the basis of religion, caste, race, community or language, even that of the electorate, will amount to a ‘corrupt practice’ and call for disqualification of the candidate
Note: Refer to brief dated 3rd Jan 2017 for the SC judgement
In the first paragraph itself author presents us with a bounty of questions like,
Q: Do fair elections require that certain kinds of statements — such as appeals to religion, caste, and language — be taken off the campaigning table altogether?
Q: Can the state prevent adult citizens from being exposed to certain ideas before they vote?
Q: Can a court decide that only certain kinds of interests count in a democracy?
Q: Does secularism mandate the complete exclusion of religion from the public sphere? And must identities based upon religion, caste, and language always be treated as evils to be fought and eradicated? Or can they sometimes become sites of emancipation, markers around which citizens organize themselves and seek liberation through the attainment of political power?
Supreme Court’s verdict
SC’s decision came on the Section 123 (3) of RP Act. This section says,
“The appeal by a candidate or hisagent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community….”
Question before the Supreme Court
The question before the Supreme Court was:
Q: Did the underlined word “his” qualify only the electoral candidate (and his agent, or persons speaking with his consent)?
Or
Q: Did it also qualify the person to whom the appeal was addressed (the elector)?
Interpretation before the verdict
The section does not specify whether “his” refers to the speaker seeking votes, or the audience from whom votes are being sought. The “his” in this clause was understood thus far as a reference to the candidate.
Present situation after the verdict
Judgement has now expanded the interpretation to include the affiliations of the voter as well. It has read sub-section 3 with two other clauses: sub-section 3(A) under Section 123 of the RP Act and Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, both of which deal with the promotion of feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India on grounds of religion, etc
What is law trying to achieve?
To select one interpretation over the other, we must ask ourselves: what is this law trying to achieve?
The Majority view
It should be noted that the judgement was delivered by a 7 judge bench which was divided 4:3. The majority view regarding the question: what is this law trying to achieve? was
- Purity of electoral process: The law was trying to achieve the purity of elections, and that the purity of elections required that appeals to caste, religion, language, and community be kept out of the electoral process. In the view of the majority, an election that was fought and decided on these issues was a distortion of democracy. This was a distortion because of following two reasons,
- Threatening the consensus: Majority held that for democracy to survive there must be a consensus on certain basic essentials like religion, language etc which could hold and unite the citizens together. Dividing the citizenry on these lines threatens the consensus thereby distorting the democracy
- Exercise of franchise based on rational thought: Secondly, while democracy depended on voters exercising their franchise on the basis of rational thought and action, appeals to religion, language, and caste were inherently emotive and irrational in nature. To substantiate this, the majority held that its basic purpose was to “curb communal, fissiparous and separatist tendencies”
Therefore, to restrict Section 123(3)’s prohibition only to electoral candidates would be contrary to public interest
Result: Consequently, according to the majority, the word “his” in Section 123(3) was to be understood broadly, referring to both the speaker as well as the audience. In effect, it prohibited appeals to the prohibited “grounds” (religion, caste etc) during the electoral process.
At the heart of disagreement
Author states that at the heart of the disagreement between the majority and the dissent was a disagreement over
- The idea of citizenship
- The value of identity
Here is what Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, the author of the dissenting opinion, wrote:
“The Constitution… recognises the position of religion, caste, language and gender in the social life of the nation. Individual histories both of citizens and collective groups in our society are associated through the ages with histories of discrimination and injustice on the basis of these defining characteristics… [and] access to governance is a means of addressing social disparities. Social mobilisation is a powerful instrument of bringing marginalised groups into the mainstream. To hold that a person who seeks to contest an election is prohibited from speaking of the legitimate concerns of citizens that the injustices faced by them on the basis of traits having an origin in religion, race, caste, community or language would be remedied is to reduce democracy to an abstraction.”
If we try to get to the gist of the above argument, it would be something like this,
- Constitution recognises the position of religion, caste, language and gender in our society. For example: Secularism, abolition of untouchability, provision of reservation for socially and educationally backward classes of citizens etc
- There have been discrimination against citizens and groups based on above defining characteristics like religion, caste, language and gender
- Social mobilization is a powerful tool to bring marginalized groups into mainstream
- So in the light of above info, to say that a person is prohibited from speaking of legitimate concerns of citizens that how the discrimination faced by them on the basis of religion, caste, language and gender, would be remedied, is wrong. For example, will campaigning for Dalit empowerment count as caste-based canvassing? This may have to be decided on a case-by-case basis but who will decide where to draw the line? Either way, the interpretation could potentially censor all mention of religion, etc
Universal citizen does not exist
Author states that the core philosophy behind the 3 judges who dissented on the case was that the idea of universal citizen did not exist meaning that human beings are always situated within their social contexts, and in India, these contexts have been characterized by religion, language, caste, and community.
So, constitutional law could not, now,
- Separate an individual from the above characteristics and say to it that he should not deliberate on it in the public sphere (a reference to political leaders)
- It could not say to those who, for centuries, had been denied dignity and rights on the very basis of their caste, religion, language or community that they were now precluded from organizing around those very markers to liberate themselves
Why cringe at social mobilization around markers of identity?
Dissenting judges stated that these markers of identity (religion, caste, language and gender) have gained social prominence after centuries of being practiced in the open. Now, due to democracy, those citizens who have been discriminated on the basis of these markers have the freedom to mobilise their entire community around the oppression thrown at them on the basis of these markers. They are now using that to gain political power. It was that which allowed B.R. Ambedkar to form the All India Scheduled Castes Federation, a political party exclusively devoted to Dalit emancipation.
Minority’s view
For this reason, the dissent held that Section 123(3) had to be construed narrowly. The phrase “his religion” referred only to the religion of an electoral candidate, and not the religion of the voter. Section 123(3) prohibited statements like “I am a Hindu, vote for me”, or “My opponent is a Hindu, don’t vote for her”.
- Such a law was permissible, because a candidate was supposed to represent her entire constituency, and not just a subset of it. But, the dissent held, this far and no further. The same logic could not be extended to citizen-electors, when they participated in the electoral process.’
- The minority favoured limiting the ambit of the sub-section to cover only candidates who sought votes on such grounds, or the rivals they wanted the voters not to back on similar grounds
Contesting viewpoints
These contesting viewpoints must be seen in the correct historical and political context. Religion-based politics has two major drawbacks.
- It often defaults to an oppositional narrative
- From an economic and governance standpoint, it is a powerful enough motivator to enable blanket community appeals that cut across economic inequalities. Such broadcasting can sometimes lead to blocs voting against their rational interests
Conclusion
Author concludes by saying that SC has presented us with two sides of an issue. It is up to us to deliberate and ask ourselves as to which explanation of the two appeals to us based on the ideals of our plural and diverse democracy.
[2] Secularising the election
Context
Supreme Court has grappled with the question whether a provision in electoral law that makes it a corrupt practice to use religion, race, caste or language as a ground for canvassing votes in an election.
Issue dealt in this editorial has already been covered in detail
Give it a go-through once.
[3] The Court reigns Supreme
The Hindu
Context
Effective immediately, any BCCI and State associations’ official must be eligible as per the Lodha Committee’s eligibility criteria.
Issue: SC’s recent decision to remove top leadership of BCCI
SC’s decision
- Lodha Committee’s criteria: Effective immediately, any BCCI and State associations’ official must be eligible as per the Lodha Committee’s eligibility criteria
- Interim-president appointed: The senior-most eligible vice-president will be the interim president of the BCCI, and the joint secretary will be the interim secretary for the next two weeks
- Committee of administrators: The court also appointed two senior advocates to propose names for a committee of administrators that will essentially govern cricket and simultaneously ensure implementation of the Lodha Committee recommendations
- Eligible officials must provide a declaration that they will be in compliance with the Lodha Committee’s directives
Final order on Jan 19th
In what is expected to be the final order on this matter, on January 19 the Supreme Court will release the names of the committee of administrators, and the transition to the court-appointed administration era will officially commence
Author suggests
As per author instead of an unelected and subjectively appointed committee, an interim committee tasked solely with the implementation of the court’s verdict and to oversee a transparent and fair election would have been ideal
Conclusion
The Supreme Court and the Lodha Committee’s work here, as the saying goes, is done. But the real challenges and work towards ensuring not just a successful governance regimen but an equally successful on- and off-pitch tenure for the new leadership has just begun.
Read More: SC bowls out top BCCI bosses
ECONOMY [The Hindu]
[1] RBI tells banks to ensure 40% of cash supply reaches rural areas
Context
The Reserve Bank of India has directed banks to ensure that at least 40 per cent of the supply of bank notes should reach rural areas
Why such directions have been issued?
The banking regulator has observed that “bank notes, being supplied to rural areas, at present, are not commensurate with the requirements of rural population.”
Directions by RBI
Banks should advise their currency chests to step up issuance of fresh notes to rural branches of Regional Rural Banks, District Central Cooperative Banks and commercial banks, White Label ATMs in rural areas and post offices in rural areas on a priority basis.
[2] Union Budget to be presented on February 1
The Hindu
Context
Departing from convention, the Union Budget will be presented in Parliament on February 1. The Union Cabinet had earlier decided to end the practice of a separate Railway budget
News
The Union Budget will be presented in Parliament on February 1, a month earlier than the usual, and the Economic Survey will be tabled on January 31, the same day President Pranab Mukherjee addresses the joint Houses of Parliament.
- The first part of the Budget session will run from January 31 to February 9
Read More: Doing away with the rail budget, Understanding the rationale behind the merger of rail and general budget
Indian Express
[1] Quota demands will only grow with jobless growth
Indian Express
Context
While its demographic dynamism requires the creation of more than eight million jobs a year, India is not doing well on that front
In the first few paragraphs author has listed the recent agitations for reservation by various communities in India, like
- Patidars/patels in Gujarat
- Jats in Haryana and neighboring states – a pretty violent affair
- Marathas in Maharashtra – after a young Maratha girl was allegedly raped by a Dalit but this movement was a non-violent in nature
- Kapus in Andhra Pradesh
What these movements reflect?
Author states that these movements reflect the differentiation among the big caste groups along class lines:
- While those in the upper strata have benefited from growth, those at the bottom of the pyramid have been badly affected by the crisis of India’s agriculture
- According to a 2016 report of the Labour Bureau, 42 per cent of the rural population is underemployed. This causes a flow of migrants to towns and cities — but those who leave their homes in villages to find a job in the private sector are often frustrated too
Lack of jobs: Jobless growth
Author points out that the demographic condition requires creation of more than eight million jobs a year, India is not doing well on that front
- Stats: According to the Labour Bureau, which has been surveying 8 sectors of industry since 2009 (textiles/apparel, leather, metals, automobiles, gems and jewellery, transport, information technology/business process outsourcing and handloom/powerloom),
- The number of jobs created by these industries is declining: From 6,40,000 in 2009 to 1,17,000 in 2014, in spite of a 7 to 8 per cent growth rate
Foreign investment
Author states that although foreign corporates have committed to invest $ 225 billion over five years. However, these FDIs will officially translate into only six million jobs because of the highly capitalistic nature of these companies.
Lack of well-paying jobs
Not only are the jobs too few, they are precarious and do not pay well.
- Earning in private sector: In the private sector, the average daily earnings of workers was Rs 249 in 2011-12, according to the Labour Bureau and those of all employees was Rs 388
- Earning in public sector:By contrast, wages in the public sector are almost three times more: Rs 679 for workers and Rs 945 for all employees. The seventh pay commission recently recommended an increase in the minimum monthly salary from Rs 7,000 to Rs 18,000.
Quota: Not a solution
Author states that all of the above points explain the demands for job quotas by dominant castes but quota is not a solution because
- Few opportunities: Opportunities are very few. There were 19.5 million jobs in the public sector in 1992-1993 when India’s population was 839 million. While the country’s population is now 1.3 billion, the number of jobs in the public sector has shrunk to 17.6 million
- Unconstitutional: Positive discrimination has been designed in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes by our constitution. Most dominant castes are not backward; only a fraction are. For that reason, the courts systematically strike down the quotas introduced by governments for such castes.
- The courts also strike down additional quotas because they push up the proportion of reservation above the 50 per cent limit set by the Supreme Court
Author suggests
- Focus on job creation: Instead of a providing class-based reservations government should focus on creating jobs
- Facilitating SMEs: Governments should facilitate small and medium enterprises which have a labor intensity about four times that of large firms. Many such enterprises are in bad shape, not just because of financial problems caused by demonetisation, but also because their access to credit is shrinking.
Live Mint
[1] Rewriting the rules of political engagement
Context
The apex court’s decision against canvassing for votes on grounds of religion, caste, creed, community or language moves into tricky territory.
SC’s recent judgement has been covered in detail in The Hindu Editorial section and the relevant points from this article have been clubbed in over there.
Give it a go-through once
[2] Reclaiming India’s leverage on Tibet
Context
India’s instinctive chariness and reserve on the issue persist, despite an increasingly muscular China upping the ante against it
Issue: India, China and Tibet
Author’s contention
India has stayed mum on increasing Chinese repression in Tibet. But now, it is allowing itself to come under Chinese pressure on the Dalai Lama’s activities and movements within India.
What has happened?
The Dalai Lama attended a public event at RashtrapatiBhavan and met President Pranab Mukherjee. The government did the right thing by permitting the Dalai Lama to participate in the event, especially since it was organized for children’s welfare by Nobel laureates, a group that includes the Dalai Lama himself.
- China’s protest: China protested the Dalai Lama’s presence at RashtrapatiBhavan. It’s foreign ministry issued the following statement
“Demanding that India respect China’s “core interests” to avoid “any disturbance” to bilateral ties, the Chinese foreign ministry stated, “China has urged India to clearly recognize the Dalai Lama’s anti-Chinese and separatist nature, to respect China’s core interests and concerns, to take effective measures to eliminate the negative influences of the incident, and to avoid disturbing China-India ties,” adding, “Recently in disregard of China’s solemn representation and strong opposition, the Indian side insisted on arranging for the 14th Dalai Lama’s visit to the Indian presidential palace, where he took part in an event and met President Mukherjee”
What India should have done?
Author points out that India should have strongly reminded China so as to not meddle in its internal affairs
What India actually did?
The ministry of external affairs responded to explain the matter to Beijing, saying,
“India has a consistent position. His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, is a respected and revered spiritual leader. It was a non-political event organized by Nobel laureates dedicated to the welfare of children”
Progression of Chinese opposition
Author points out that from objecting to official discussions between the Dalai Lama and a foreign head of state or government, China’s opposition has progressed to protesting his presence at any state-linked event or even his purely spiritual visit to another country, as to Mongolia recently. It has also sought to curtail his freedom within a free India.
The Mongolian example
Take Mongolia, which has had close links with Tibet ever since the great Mongol king, Altan Khan, converted to Tibetan Buddhism. Indeed, the fourth Dalai Lama was born in Mongolia. But when Mongolia in November stood up to China by permitting the Dalai Lama to undertake a four-day religious tour involving no official meeting, Beijing responded as a typical bully by freezing ties and seeking to throttle its economy—dependent on commodity exports to China—by slapping punitive tariffs and shutting a key border crossing point. And it kept up the coercive pressure until Mongolia, battling a recession, agreed not to allow the Dalai Lama in again even for a religious tour.
Author suggests
- Ignore Chinese protests on Tibet: The way to deal with China on such an issue is to ignore its protests and keep doing more frequently what it finds objectionable so as to blunt its objections. This approach is necessary in order to send a clear message that China cannot arrogantly lay down terms for India to follow. India can use the Tibet card to its advantage here. Tibet is to India against China what Pakistan is to China against India. When China doesn’t hesitates in balancing India with Pakistan by initiatives like CPEC or supplying it with nuclear weapons and other tech, why should India do so?
- Fixing the asymmetrical trade: China has a rapidly growing trade surplus with India amounting to around $60 billion a year. India needs to fix this asymmetrical trade relationship with China
Conclusion
Author concludes by stating that without India asserting itself by reopening the Tibet issue, China will continue to breathe down its neck and seek to dictate terms. For example, when the Dalai Lama tours Arunachal Pradesh shortly, Beijing will again unleash its diplomatic fury by intimidating India.
Leave a Reply