✌✌✌✌ THE HINDU ✌✌✌✌
✌✌ Due diligence, unsafe drugs ✌✌
Good intentions alone are not enough to secure the public interest. For governments, the manner in which it is protected is equally vital. The Delhi High Court verdict quashing all notifications banning the manufacture and sale of 344 Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs is a lesson in how not to administer a regulatory law. The ban on combination drugs that have little therapeutic value was undoubtedly done for bona fide reasons. However, the government could not convince the court that the ban was valid despite statutory bodies such as the Drug Testing Advisory Board (DTAB) and the Drugs Consultative Committee (DCC) not being involved in the process. There is little doubt that a number of combination drugs should be taken off the shelf. The government believes, as do many health activists, that some combinations are unsafe and/or promote antibiotic resistance, while others lack particular therapeutic value, justification or advantage. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw has correctly refrained from going into the merits of the ban, and has chosen to subject to scrutiny the process by which the decision was arrived at. While concluding that the ban was invalid because the power under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was exercised without consulting the DTAB and DCC, he has found that the government went about the process in a haphazard manner.
Initially it was noted that in the case of FDC drugs for which manufacturing licences were granted by State licensing authorities between September 1988 and October 2012, the process was done without any approval from the Drugs Controller. When they applied afresh to the Centre, on being asked to do so, their applications were not considered by the Drugs Controller; instead, the Centre formed 10 committees. When these panels failed to consider all the applications, another one, the Kokate Committee, was formed. However, this panel went into the question whether these drugs posed a risk to consumers or lacked therapeutic value and justification. Based on its report, the Centre issued notifications banning these FDCs. In effect, the Centre seemed to have delegated its power to ban drugs to a non-statutory committee, when the Act itself provided for expert bodies through which technical aspects of administering the law were to be considered. The government ought to have been more mindful of the processes. It is possible that an appeal will be filed on the legal aspects of the judgment, but the real lesson from the episode concerns governance, and not the law alone.
✌✌ Indonesia’s blasphemy protests ✌✌
Some 200,000 white-clad Indonesians took to the streets of Jakarta to call for the arrest of the city’s governor, Basuki Purnama. Mr. Purnama, who is a “double minority” for being ethnically Chinese and a Christian, riled the sentiments of certain hardline sections in September when he said a Koranic verse had been used to trick voters into believing that Muslims ought not be led by a non-Muslim. Since then, Indonesia has been convulsed by protests, including one near the presidential palace in early November that turned violent. The embattled Mr. Purnama has been slapped with blasphemy charges, and an investigation is ongoing. His political proximity to President Joko Widodo does not appear to have slowed the momentum of the protests. Prior to winning the presidency in 2014, Mr. Widodo was the governor of Jakarta, and Mr. Purnama, a frontrunner in the February 2017 governorship election, is on track to forge a pathway to even higher political office. Mr. Widodo has been silent on the motives driving the latest protest, even as he appeared at the scene to praise its relatively peaceful tenor. However, the recent arrest for treason of at least eight people, including Rachmawati Soekarnoputri, daughter of Indonesia’s founding father Sukarno, suggests that other political factors may be at play, including an attempt to whip up public sentiment against Mr. Purnama securing a second term as governor.
Given the Jakarta-centric locus of the protests, it is likely that anger over Mr. Purnama launching large-scale slum evictions in the city has brought many from among the poorer sections to their feet. Yet the fact that the demonstration was orchestrated by the right-wing Islamic Defenders Front Party, which also set up charity operations in the affected North Jakarta neighbourhoods, indicates that support for Islamist ideology from local residents has been a critical factor. This development, if it gains wider momentum across the countryside, could be a retrograde step for Indonesia, which has until now, like neighbouring Malaysia, stood out as a regional bulwark against extremism, maintaining secular tolerance of Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist minorities. Adventurism of this sort could endanger the accommodating fabric of Indonesian society years after the post-Bali bombing purge of fundamentalists. This is especially a matter of concern in the context of suspicion that hundreds of Indonesian youth recently travelled to Syria to join the Islamic State. While Mr. Widodo’s encouraging remarks to the protesters are understandable, the onus is on him to take a stand against allowing the latest turn of events from turning into a launching pad for a more intolerant national ethos.
✌✌✌✌ THE ECONOMIC TIMES ✌✌✌✌
✌✌ Isolate Pakistan but don’t build up jingoism ✌✌
It is a matter of some satisfaction that the Amritsar Heart of Asia ministerial conference, the sixth iteration of an annual event in which 30-odd countries get together to discuss regional, economic and security ties focusing on stabilising Afghanistan, began with a clear focus on Pakistan’s continued support to terror networks. It was no surprise that Prime Minister Narendra Modi should stress the need to curb not just terror outfits but also nations that support and finance them. What did come as a pleasant surprise was Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s readiness to pull no punches on the subject. He said that Pakistan, which has promised $500-million assistance to Afghanistan, could find a better use for those funds in suppressing extremism. Taliban factions have said that they find support in Pakistan, he said, driving the point home.
The conference contains China, along with all major South, Central and West Asian nations, besides the major powers of the world and international organisations. China can be expected to stand by its ‘friend’ Pakistan.
But it is clear that Pakistan is finding it increasingly difficult to present its indisputable role as a target of vicious terror at
tacks as a convincing shield against the charge of sponsoring terror. This suits India all right. But to what avail? Until a route to supply Afghanistan other than through Pakistan is viably established, the US and its allies will be constrained to put up with Pakistan on an asis-where-is basis. India will have to rely on its own internal resources and preparedness a great deal more thorough than what was visible at Pathankot, Uri or Nagrota armed forces posts to ward off terror strikes.
While using a major international forum to bring out Islamabad’s role in fostering terror as state policy is fine, a risk must be recognised. There is much hostility towards Pakistan in the public discourse. Tension has been building up along the border and the Line of Control as well. Tough talk against Pakistan should not descend into jingoism that is a prelude to active hostilities.
✌✌ Due diligence, unsafe drugs ✌✌
Good intentions alone are not enough to secure the public interest. For governments, the manner in which it is protected is equally vital. The Delhi High Court verdict quashing all notifications banning the manufacture and sale of 344 Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs is a lesson in how not to administer a regulatory law. The ban on combination drugs that have little therapeutic value was undoubtedly done for bona fide reasons. However, the government could not convince the court that the ban was valid despite statutory bodies such as the Drug Testing Advisory Board (DTAB) and the Drugs Consultative Committee (DCC) not being involved in the process. There is little doubt that a number of combination drugs should be taken off the shelf. The government believes, as do many health activists, that some combinations are unsafe and/or promote antibiotic resistance, while others lack particular therapeutic value, justification or advantage. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw has correctly refrained from going into the merits of the ban, and has chosen to subject to scrutiny the process by which the decision was arrived at. While concluding that the ban was invalid because the power under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was exercised without consulting the DTAB and DCC, he has found that the government went about the process in a haphazard manner.
Initially it was noted that in the case of FDC drugs for which manufacturing licences were granted by State licensing authorities between September 1988 and October 2012, the process was done without any approval from the Drugs Controller. When they applied afresh to the Centre, on being asked to do so, their applications were not considered by the Drugs Controller; instead, the Centre formed 10 committees. When these panels failed to consider all the applications, another one, the Kokate Committee, was formed. However, this panel went into the question whether these drugs posed a risk to consumers or lacked therapeutic value and justification. Based on its report, the Centre issued notifications banning these FDCs. In effect, the Centre seemed to have delegated its power to ban drugs to a non-statutory committee, when the Act itself provided for expert bodies through which technical aspects of administering the law were to be considered. The government ought to have been more mindful of the processes. It is possible that an appeal will be filed on the legal aspects of the judgment, but the real lesson from the episode concerns governance, and not the law alone.
✌✌ Indonesia’s blasphemy protests ✌✌
Some 200,000 white-clad Indonesians took to the streets of Jakarta to call for the arrest of the city’s governor, Basuki Purnama. Mr. Purnama, who is a “double minority” for being ethnically Chinese and a Christian, riled the sentiments of certain hardline sections in September when he said a Koranic verse had been used to trick voters into believing that Muslims ought not be led by a non-Muslim. Since then, Indonesia has been convulsed by protests, including one near the presidential palace in early November that turned violent. The embattled Mr. Purnama has been slapped with blasphemy charges, and an investigation is ongoing. His political proximity to President Joko Widodo does not appear to have slowed the momentum of the protests. Prior to winning the presidency in 2014, Mr. Widodo was the governor of Jakarta, and Mr. Purnama, a frontrunner in the February 2017 governorship election, is on track to forge a pathway to even higher political office. Mr. Widodo has been silent on the motives driving the latest protest, even as he appeared at the scene to praise its relatively peaceful tenor. However, the recent arrest for treason of at least eight people, including Rachmawati Soekarnoputri, daughter of Indonesia’s founding father Sukarno, suggests that other political factors may be at play, including an attempt to whip up public sentiment against Mr. Purnama securing a second term as governor.
Given the Jakarta-centric locus of the protests, it is likely that anger over Mr. Purnama launching large-scale slum evictions in the city has brought many from among the poorer sections to their feet. Yet the fact that the demonstration was orchestrated by the right-wing Islamic Defenders Front Party, which also set up charity operations in the affected North Jakarta neighbourhoods, indicates that support for Islamist ideology from local residents has been a critical factor. This development, if it gains wider momentum across the countryside, could be a retrograde step for Indonesia, which has until now, like neighbouring Malaysia, stood out as a regional bulwark against extremism, maintaining secular tolerance of Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist minorities. Adventurism of this sort could endanger the accommodating fabric of Indonesian society years after the post-Bali bombing purge of fundamentalists. This is especially a matter of concern in the context of suspicion that hundreds of Indonesian youth recently travelled to Syria to join the Islamic State. While Mr. Widodo’s encouraging remarks to the protesters are understandable, the onus is on him to take a stand against allowing the latest turn of events from turning into a launching pad for a more intolerant national ethos.
✌✌✌✌ THE ECONOMIC TIMES ✌✌✌✌
✌✌ Isolate Pakistan but don’t build up jingoism ✌✌
It is a matter of some satisfaction that the Amritsar Heart of Asia ministerial conference, the sixth iteration of an annual event in which 30-odd countries get together to discuss regional, economic and security ties focusing on stabilising Afghanistan, began with a clear focus on Pakistan’s continued support to terror networks. It was no surprise that Prime Minister Narendra Modi should stress the need to curb not just terror outfits but also nations that support and finance them. What did come as a pleasant surprise was Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s readiness to pull no punches on the subject. He said that Pakistan, which has promised $500-million assistance to Afghanistan, could find a better use for those funds in suppressing extremism. Taliban factions have said that they find support in Pakistan, he said, driving the point home.
The conference contains China, along with all major South, Central and West Asian nations, besides the major powers of the world and international organisations. China can be expected to stand by its ‘friend’ Pakistan.
But it is clear that Pakistan is finding it increasingly difficult to present its indisputable role as a target of vicious terror at
tacks as a convincing shield against the charge of sponsoring terror. This suits India all right. But to what avail? Until a route to supply Afghanistan other than through Pakistan is viably established, the US and its allies will be constrained to put up with Pakistan on an asis-where-is basis. India will have to rely on its own internal resources and preparedness a great deal more thorough than what was visible at Pathankot, Uri or Nagrota armed forces posts to ward off terror strikes.
While using a major international forum to bring out Islamabad’s role in fostering terror as state policy is fine, a risk must be recognised. There is much hostility towards Pakistan in the public discourse. Tension has been building up along the border and the Line of Control as well. Tough talk against Pakistan should not descend into jingoism that is a prelude to active hostilities.
No comments:
Post a Comment