✌✌✌✌ THE HINDU ✌✌✌✌
✌✌ The limits to popular sentiment ✌✌
Tamil Nadu is caught in a near-spontaneous mass upsurge in support of jallikattu, the bull-taming spectacle held during the time of the harvest festival of Pongal. Tens of thousands have gathered in public places, most notably on Chennai’s Marina beach, on a day-and-night vigil, seeking the reversal of the Supreme Court-ordered ban on the conduct of the annual ritual. In the name of cultural pride and custom and tradition, students and youth have risen up. The show of solidarity has been peaceful, in sharp contrast to the aggression shown by some enthusiasts on social media in targeting certain celebrities for their earlier support to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam felt compelled to respond to this movement, and rushed to meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi and wrest an assurance on an ordinance to nullify the Supreme Court ban. But whatever the views of the youth taking part in the demonstration, jallikattu in its present form is of relatively recent origin, intended to make bulls run amok for the sake of spectacle. Instead of the traditional form of one man against one animal, latter-day jallikattu is a mass-participant ritual of hundreds of men chasing a bull and trying to hold on to its hump or stop it by pulling at or twisting its tail.
Few other feudal traditions have survived in modern, progressive India in the name of masculine valour and cultural pride. When the Supreme Court banned this spectacle that took a heavy toll on both the animals and the human participants, it did so after attempts at its regulation and the orderly conduct of this “sport” were deemed a failure. In 2013, under the watch of the Animal Welfare Board of India, the onus was on the State of Tamil Nadu to ensure that jallikattu did not violate the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. But, the opportunity to ensure a jallikattu that was free of cruelty to the animals and injuries to the participating youth was frittered away. Efforts that are now on to nullify the effect of the Supreme Court judgment through the ordinance route thus carry a serious risk of judicial reproach. Last year, the Centre did try to get around the court order by issuing an executive notification that granted exemption from restrictions on the use of bulls as performing animals in traditional sports. The proper course for the Centre and the State government is to persuade the Supreme Court that a jallikattu that does not involve, or at least almost eliminates, cruelty to animals and that guarantees the safety of spectators and participants alike is indeed possible. It is all right if popular sentiment can influence legislation, but it cannot undermine the rule of law.
✌✌ Rebooting disinvestment ✌✌
To gain some perspective on the Centre’s decision to divest 25% of its stake in five public sector general insurers, consider these numbers. Last year, the gross premium income of four of these companies — New India Assurance, United India Insurance, Oriental Insurance and National Insurance — increased by over 12%. But their profits after tax fell by more than half from a year earlier, from ₹3,094 crore in 2014-15 to just ₹1,499 crore in 2015-16. A closer scrutiny reveals that high underwriting losses, which increased 55% in the year, were largely responsible for profits falling at these firms even as revenues rose. National Insurance took the sharpest hit, with a 148% rise in underwriting losses. Public shareholding in these firms will lead to questions about such outliers in performance that haven’t been heard under the Centre’s present 100% ownership structure, at least in the public domain. This, as Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said in his Budget speech last year, would lead to greater transparency and accountability. It will also allow the firms, including General Insurance Corporation of India, to raise more capital from the markets instead of relying on taxpayer money alone. For instance, India’s ₹1,500-crore nuclear liability insurance pool created by GIC with other insurers perhaps needs more muscle to create confidence among wary nuclear suppliers.
That it took 11 months for a Budget announcement to secure ‘in-principle’ Cabinet approval is symptomatic of the lethargy in the disinvestment programme. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had asserted early in his term — during his maiden official visit to the U.S. in 2014 — that government had no business being in business. Yet, it took two more years for the Cabinet to sign off on the first strategic sale (with transfer of ownership and control) under its watch, in the loss-making Bharat Pumps and Compressors. In December, it approved the sale of land with four sick public sector pharma firms with a plan to close two, and ‘explore the option’ of strategic sale for Hindustan Antibiotics and Bengal Chemicals. This month, stock exchanges were informed about a proposal to sell a 26% stake in heavy equipment-maker BEML to a strategic investor. The political economy window for such divestment is not unlimited. Even the Atal Bihari Vajpayee regime, which spearheaded the strategic sale of public sector firms engaged in businesses ranging from bread to phosphates, raised 84% of such revenue during its third and fourth years in office. Halfway through its term, it is time this government’s disinvestment plans gather steam.
✌✌✌✌ THE ECONOMIC TIMES ✌✌✌✌
✌✌ CBI: Neither caged parrot nor partisan hawk ✌✌
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has a long tradition of serving as the political tool of the powers that be. The tradition would appear to be gaining strength, rather than being supplanted with healthy professionalism. The CBI’s probe into graft allegations against Delhi’s deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and health minister Satyendra Jain, as well as arrest of two sitting members of Parliament from the Trinamool Congress would appear to more selective targeting of opponents of the ruling party than upholding probity in public life. Former chief ministers of Uttar Pradesh, Mayawati and Mulayam Singh, have, in the past, directly and indirectly hinted at the use of CBI cases against them to exert political pressure. As India develops as a democracy, integrity of the institutions of the state must strengthen, not weaken.
An institutional solution would have three parts, relating to appointment of the organisation’s chief, lines of accountability and professionalism. Ideally, the bureau should have its own, directly recruited, professional cadre. The very process of deputation from various police forces is a node for injecting political patronage. The appointment of the bureau’s chief is by the prime minister, the leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the chief justice. This is not foolproof, as appointment of an interim chief whose tenure would witness the superannuation of some eligible candidates, shows.
Even more important is how the organisation is held to account. The CBI must report to the executive, as it does. Its chief must testify, on a regular basis, before a multiparty committee of Parliament. It, along with all other police outfits, must also be accountable to the National Human Rights Commission. Multiple lines of accountability would guarantee autonomy.
✌✌ The limits to popular sentiment ✌✌
Tamil Nadu is caught in a near-spontaneous mass upsurge in support of jallikattu, the bull-taming spectacle held during the time of the harvest festival of Pongal. Tens of thousands have gathered in public places, most notably on Chennai’s Marina beach, on a day-and-night vigil, seeking the reversal of the Supreme Court-ordered ban on the conduct of the annual ritual. In the name of cultural pride and custom and tradition, students and youth have risen up. The show of solidarity has been peaceful, in sharp contrast to the aggression shown by some enthusiasts on social media in targeting certain celebrities for their earlier support to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam felt compelled to respond to this movement, and rushed to meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi and wrest an assurance on an ordinance to nullify the Supreme Court ban. But whatever the views of the youth taking part in the demonstration, jallikattu in its present form is of relatively recent origin, intended to make bulls run amok for the sake of spectacle. Instead of the traditional form of one man against one animal, latter-day jallikattu is a mass-participant ritual of hundreds of men chasing a bull and trying to hold on to its hump or stop it by pulling at or twisting its tail.
Few other feudal traditions have survived in modern, progressive India in the name of masculine valour and cultural pride. When the Supreme Court banned this spectacle that took a heavy toll on both the animals and the human participants, it did so after attempts at its regulation and the orderly conduct of this “sport” were deemed a failure. In 2013, under the watch of the Animal Welfare Board of India, the onus was on the State of Tamil Nadu to ensure that jallikattu did not violate the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. But, the opportunity to ensure a jallikattu that was free of cruelty to the animals and injuries to the participating youth was frittered away. Efforts that are now on to nullify the effect of the Supreme Court judgment through the ordinance route thus carry a serious risk of judicial reproach. Last year, the Centre did try to get around the court order by issuing an executive notification that granted exemption from restrictions on the use of bulls as performing animals in traditional sports. The proper course for the Centre and the State government is to persuade the Supreme Court that a jallikattu that does not involve, or at least almost eliminates, cruelty to animals and that guarantees the safety of spectators and participants alike is indeed possible. It is all right if popular sentiment can influence legislation, but it cannot undermine the rule of law.
✌✌ Rebooting disinvestment ✌✌
To gain some perspective on the Centre’s decision to divest 25% of its stake in five public sector general insurers, consider these numbers. Last year, the gross premium income of four of these companies — New India Assurance, United India Insurance, Oriental Insurance and National Insurance — increased by over 12%. But their profits after tax fell by more than half from a year earlier, from ₹3,094 crore in 2014-15 to just ₹1,499 crore in 2015-16. A closer scrutiny reveals that high underwriting losses, which increased 55% in the year, were largely responsible for profits falling at these firms even as revenues rose. National Insurance took the sharpest hit, with a 148% rise in underwriting losses. Public shareholding in these firms will lead to questions about such outliers in performance that haven’t been heard under the Centre’s present 100% ownership structure, at least in the public domain. This, as Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said in his Budget speech last year, would lead to greater transparency and accountability. It will also allow the firms, including General Insurance Corporation of India, to raise more capital from the markets instead of relying on taxpayer money alone. For instance, India’s ₹1,500-crore nuclear liability insurance pool created by GIC with other insurers perhaps needs more muscle to create confidence among wary nuclear suppliers.
That it took 11 months for a Budget announcement to secure ‘in-principle’ Cabinet approval is symptomatic of the lethargy in the disinvestment programme. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had asserted early in his term — during his maiden official visit to the U.S. in 2014 — that government had no business being in business. Yet, it took two more years for the Cabinet to sign off on the first strategic sale (with transfer of ownership and control) under its watch, in the loss-making Bharat Pumps and Compressors. In December, it approved the sale of land with four sick public sector pharma firms with a plan to close two, and ‘explore the option’ of strategic sale for Hindustan Antibiotics and Bengal Chemicals. This month, stock exchanges were informed about a proposal to sell a 26% stake in heavy equipment-maker BEML to a strategic investor. The political economy window for such divestment is not unlimited. Even the Atal Bihari Vajpayee regime, which spearheaded the strategic sale of public sector firms engaged in businesses ranging from bread to phosphates, raised 84% of such revenue during its third and fourth years in office. Halfway through its term, it is time this government’s disinvestment plans gather steam.
✌✌✌✌ THE ECONOMIC TIMES ✌✌✌✌
✌✌ CBI: Neither caged parrot nor partisan hawk ✌✌
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has a long tradition of serving as the political tool of the powers that be. The tradition would appear to be gaining strength, rather than being supplanted with healthy professionalism. The CBI’s probe into graft allegations against Delhi’s deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and health minister Satyendra Jain, as well as arrest of two sitting members of Parliament from the Trinamool Congress would appear to more selective targeting of opponents of the ruling party than upholding probity in public life. Former chief ministers of Uttar Pradesh, Mayawati and Mulayam Singh, have, in the past, directly and indirectly hinted at the use of CBI cases against them to exert political pressure. As India develops as a democracy, integrity of the institutions of the state must strengthen, not weaken.
An institutional solution would have three parts, relating to appointment of the organisation’s chief, lines of accountability and professionalism. Ideally, the bureau should have its own, directly recruited, professional cadre. The very process of deputation from various police forces is a node for injecting political patronage. The appointment of the bureau’s chief is by the prime minister, the leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the chief justice. This is not foolproof, as appointment of an interim chief whose tenure would witness the superannuation of some eligible candidates, shows.
Even more important is how the organisation is held to account. The CBI must report to the executive, as it does. Its chief must testify, on a regular basis, before a multiparty committee of Parliament. It, along with all other police outfits, must also be accountable to the National Human Rights Commission. Multiple lines of accountability would guarantee autonomy.
No comments:
Post a Comment