Hindu Editorial - 1st November 2018

PDF LINK - CLICK HERE

VIDEO LINK - CLICK HERE

News Papers EDITORIALS - 25 JANUARY 2017

✌✌✌✌  THE HINDU   ✌✌✌✌

✌✌  The end of a protest  ✌✌ 

Everybody loves a good protest — an orderly, self-limiting protest at iconic landmarks organised with state sanction and police protection. But what began as a people’s protest on Chennai’s Marina beach against the ban on jallikattu quickly descended into chaos and confusion when the protesters stood their ground even after the government came up with a practical, legislative solution to the judiciary-imposed prohibition of the annual bull-taming ritual. As the police resorted to force, violence broke out in several parts of Tamil Nadu. Unfortunately, some in the police not only used excessive force but also tried to match the rioters in lawlessness by attacking two-wheelers and setting fire to autorickshaws. Only later in the day did the authorities try to use rational arguments by taking the help of a retired judge and a group of lawyers to persuade the protesters to vacate the Marina where the Republic Day parade is scheduled to be held. Clearly, the government was slow to react, relying more on hope and good fortune than on facts and ground reports. And when it did, it acted as if the agitation was a case of breakdown of law and order. Many among those who had taken the lead in the protests gave a call for withdrawal of the agitation, but by this time the movement had acquired a life of its own. No one thing would have pleased what had become a large, amorphous crowd of several groups of people with very different agenda items: jallikattu was by now no more than a loose binding thread.
For days the Marina had been the haunt of people of all hues. Those owing allegiance to Hindutva saw the ban as an attack on cultural rituals and seemed to make common cause with those from minority communities who felt threatened by the BJP-led government at the Centre. Conservatives sensed a judicial overreach on civil issues and shouted the same slogans as left-wingers who imagined the upsurge to be a people’s uprising against authoritarianism. AIADMK members who tried to showcase the protest as a rebuff to a domineering Centre stood not too far from DMK loyalists who wanted to use the opportunity to paint the State government as inept. Not surprisingly, many of these people wanted the protest to go on, no matter what. The legislation addressed only the symptoms of their anger, not its underlying cause. The government and its police force must take the blame for misreading the mood and mishandling a volatile situation and putting a whole State through an entire day of anger and anguish.


✌✌  Budgeting for the elections  ✌✌

The suspense over the timing of the Union Budget for 2017-18 finally ended on Monday with the Election Commission and the Supreme Court scotching calls, in the light of upcoming elections for five State Assemblies, to defer the February 1 date proposed by the Centre. The NDA government has been keen to abandon the tradition of presenting the next financial year’s Budget on the last working day of February, citing the potential benefits for the economy from faster spending of the approved public expenditure. With a February-end Budget, transmission of funds, and thereby meaningful implementation, seldom starts before June, by which time the monsoon sets in. This leaves just about two quarters to spend a whole year’s funding for projects involving physical infrastructure capacity-creation, for instance. This is the argument in favour of advancing the Budget date. The Opposition, for its part, has voiced concern that a Budget presentation this year so close to Assembly polls could influence voters. In 2012, the last time these five States were headed for polls, the UPA government had voluntarily opted to defer the Budget presentation. But as the Supreme Court has pointed out, the Central Budget cannot shake the minds of voters in a State.
Interestingly, the Election Commission’s nod for a February 1 Budget comes with the caveat that it must not announce schemes aimed at poll-bound Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Manipur, Punjab and Goa, or even expound on any achievements of development programmes in these States. The caution to the government to not use the Budget as a campaign tool is understandable, and the government will have to be more nuanced in addressing the concerns of the entire country in the Budget without making a regional pitch. For long, governments have voiced discomfort with the model code of conduct in India’s perpetually ticking election cycle, arguing that it inhibits decision-making. Indeed, this anxiety to reduce the paralysis imposed by the model code has been one of the main reasons cited for a proposal for simultaneous elections to Parliament and State Assemblies. But simultaneous elections could pose their own complications. The departure from practice effected now is an opportunity for the Centre not just to get on with the business of government, but also to do so in a confidence-building manner that would make a case for relaxing further, or reforming, the parameters of the model code. The government must act in good faith, and table a statement on the improvements recorded in outcomes on account of advancing this annual ritual when the Union Finance Minister rises to present the Budget next week. Too-clever-by-half messaging to use the speech as a campaign tool would only imperil this reform.



✌✌✌✌   THE ECONOMIC TIMES   ✌✌✌✌

✌✌  It’s anyone’s game in Uttar Pradesh   ✌✌

After much haggling, Akhilesh Yadav-led Samajwadi Party (SP) and the Congress finally announced their alliance in Uttar Pradesh. From a four-cornered contest involving the SP, Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the contest is now triangular. This might succeed in keeping the votes of Muslims (a hefty 19% of UP’s electorate), with the alliance. Such consolidation of Muslim votes is bad news for Mayawati, who would have hoped to capitalise on not just anti-incumbency against the SP government but also the minorities’ desire for an anti-BJP champion other than a divided SP. A Dalit-Muslim alliance would have spelt bad news for BJP.
What is bad for BSP is good for the other principal challenger, BJP. BJP will rely on the charisma of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to win UP: after all, in 2014, the party swept 71of the state’s 80 Lok Sabha seats. BJP has inducted ‘outsiders’ as candidates, leading to some grumbling among loyalists. These polls will be seen as a referendum on ‘demonetisation’, besides on the endurance of Modi’s charisma. All OBCs, which include Yadavs, are 40% of the population, but apart from Yadavs, SP cannot take everyone’s support for granted. The presence of the Congress might wean some upper-caste votes — 22% of the total — away from the BJP. This sort of arithmetic makes sense in UP. Narrow majorities matter: in 2012, SP won 224 of 403 seats with just 29.2% of total votes.
Conventional wisdom says whichever party wins 30% of the popular vote, gets to form the government in Lucknow. Adding Congress’ 2012 tally of 11.6% of all votes to the SP’s share makes a compelling case for the alliance. Things are not as simple. SP faces considerable anti-incumbency for the relative deterioration of law and order under its rule. Muslim consolidation could, aided by the kind of propaganda some BJP leaders carry out on a Hindu exodus, could lead to a counter-consolidation that favours the BJP. Only by presenting the split in SP as a break from a tradition of patronising criminals can Akhilesh rally support.

News Papers EDITORIALS - 24 JANUARY 2017

✌✌✌✌  THE HINDU   ✌✌✌✌

✌✌  An alliance of its time  ✌✌


In the end, the Congress party got itself a better seat-sharing deal from the Samajwadi Party that it could have realistically hoped for; never mind that its vice-president, Rahul Gandhi, had sounded a war cry with a Deoria-to-Delhi trek through Uttar Pradesh on the claim of the party forming the government on its own. On Sunday, after some tense moments with each party affecting that it was ready to walk away if it did not get its maximalist demands, an alliance for the February-March U.P. Assembly elections was announced. The SP will fight 298 seats, the Congress 105. With this, both parties have created for themselves an opportunity that may be more than the sum of their individual chances, and for both it is perfectly timed. The SP is battling not just anti-incumbency but also the shock of the 2014 Lok Sabha verdict, when it won just five seats. It has gone through a nerve-wracking rite of passage as Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav took on his father Mulayam Singh Yadav’s perceived coterie, for control of the party organisation, and then, at the Election Commission’s door, for the party symbol of the cycle. In fact, this was a necessary transition in the SP for any tie-up with the Congress to strike true. The Congress’s relations with Mr. Mulayam Singh have always lacked good faith to encourage vote transfer, and the history of dashed expectations would have made the alliance difficult to pull off on his watch.
For Mr. Akhilesh Yadav, the alliance completes his effort to rebrand himself, from being no longer the young Chief Minister of the past years who was mocked for being witless in allowing his “uncles” (family members and party seniors) to run the administration. As the unity among the uncles cracked in the past few months, the Chief Minister came into his own. It helped cast him in the public eye as a leader capable of standing on his own terms, and he strategically showcased the fight as being less about spoils and more about ideals. Now, by turning the election into a three-cornered contest, he can use the SP-Congress alliance to attract voters, especially the minorities, looking to cast their ballot tactically to defeat the BJP candidate. For, even at its historic nadir in the State in 2014, the Congress got almost 8% of the vote. In turn, for the grand old party, to be even seen to be on a winning ballot in U.P. would be a transformational leap. The two parties are not operating in a vacuum, and both the BJP and the BSP will put up formidable campaigns. But together they have made the contest more keen than their individual challenges could have done.


✌✌  Globalisation’s new spokesman  ✌✌

President Xi Jinping’s message to the World Economic Forum in Davos was timely and perhaps visionary as well, in this time of extraordinary global uncertainty. It is no surprise if, as in the case of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s potential leadership of the Western alliance, questions have arisen at this juncture about Mr. Xi’s willingness to take up cudgels on behalf of broader internationalism and against the rising tide of inward-looking nationalism. His address at the opening plenary before captains of business and industry could not have been a more robust and reassuring defence of the current world economic order, perceived to be at its most fragile in the post-War era with the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President. Foremost is Mr. Xi’s caution against attempts to prevent the free flow of goods, services, capital and people as running counter to the historical trend. It is tempting to interpret this remark as a pointed rebuke to growing calls for economic protectionism at a time when a slump in world trade underpins slow economic growth. Not to be missed also is the categorical support he expressed for the swift enforcement of the Paris accord on climate change. Mr. Xi reiterated the call for a reform of global economic governance structures, to reflect the contribution of the emerging and developing countries. His plea for more inclusive representation is in contrast to the unprecedented attacks mounted against post-War institutions in the same countries that crafted their original architecture.
Mr. Xi fundamentally rejected the stance that seeks to lay the blame for the current challenges at the doorstep of globalisation. The tragic effects of mass migration, he said, have their roots in the recent wars and regional conflicts, rather than in economic globalisation. His diagnosis of Europe’s challenges on this front could not entirely be faulted, even if it is largely true that the developing countries have reaped most of the benefits of economic mobility, rather than having to deal with the difficulties of immigration. There may be arguments over the modes and methods of managing the political fallout from globalisation. But there is no denying the mounting and demonstrable evidence that the post-Cold War era of open economies has brought unprecedented prosperity and income redistribution around the world. Mr. Xi’s case for globalisation is the most forceful such statement by a Chinese leader yet. For long Beijing has been accused of not taking on the burdens of a leadership role commensurate with its economic and strategic power. The changing world order may have left it with no option but to step up to the podium. It also turns the mirror on Beijing, demanding of it a lot more action to back its own words.


✌✌✌✌   THE ECONOMIC TIMES   ✌✌✌✌

✌✌  No benign neglect of Luxottica-Essilor, CCI  ✌✌  

When two European firms merge, should the Indian competition regulator take a view? It can and it could. Italy-based Luxottica, maker of Ray-Ban and other eyewear brands, has announced a merger with leading producer of lenses, France’s Essilor. The all-share merger would produce a €46 billion eyewear giant. While there is, as of now, no indication of abuse of its market dominance, which is what competition authorities worry about these days, rather than market dominance per se, there is potential for such an integrated player to act to the detriment of competitors.
Should this worry India’s competition authority? After all, the merger is taking place in faraway Europe and subject to the approval of Europe’s own beady-eyed watchdog. The simple point here is that such considerations about the national affiliation of companies and their regulatory oversight by the competent body of the relevant jurisdiction should not prevent the Competition Commission of India from examining such mergers for their impact on the Indian market.
In 2001, the European Competition Commission blocked the proposed merger of GE with Honeywell. Both are American companies and had approval from American regulators and from the regulators of 11other jurisdictions. Yet, Europe’s regulator assessed the merger to be not in Europe’s interest. Since Europe was too vital a market for GE or Honeywell to ignore, they abandoned the merger. India is slated to be one of the largest and fastest-growing consumer markets, including for eyewear. It is not a market anyone can ignore. It could well be that the proposed Luxottica-Essilor merger has no negative implication for India. But that should be established by CCI after a proper review, not assumed away at the outset.

News Papers EDITORIALS - 23 JANUARY 2017

✌✌✌✌  THE HINDU   ✌✌✌✌

✌✌   In fruitless pursuit of permanence  ✌✌


The Tamil Nadu government may have had few political options but to go in for an ordinance to facilitate the conduct of jallikattu once the surge in popular sentiment in favour of the traditional bull-taming sport gathered an enormous, unstoppable momentum. The State amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, seeks to exempt jallikattu from the purview of the law. With the implacable mass movement demanding a legal solution to overcome the judicial ban on jallikattu on the one side, and related litigation pending in the Supreme Court on the other, there was little that the Union government could have done on its own. For the Centre to bring in an amendment would have incurred the wrath of the Supreme Court, which stayed a January 2016 notification and will rule on its validity soon. Instead, the Centre granted its consent to the State Governor promulgating the ordinance. However, just when it seemed that a legal solution has been found, there is another twist. The protests are continuing, as its spearheads demand a ‘permanent solution’. Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam’s plan to inaugurate the jallikattu event in Alanganallur did not fructify.
The protesters are obviously under the mistaken impression that an ordinance is ‘temporary’. They remain unmoved even after the State government clarified that it intends to replace it with a Bill when the Assembly convenes on January 23. But even a parliamentary Act is subject to judicial scrutiny. The ordinance has pleased neither side in the jallikattu vs. animal rights debate. The Centre’s nod may have ensured that the ordinance will not be opposed as being repugnant to a Central law, but other legal hurdles remain. The Supreme Court has declared that jallikattu is inherently cruel and contrary to the objectives of the PCA. Unless it recognises culture and tradition as valid grounds to permit events involving bulls, the exemption given to jallikattu may be invalidated. Meanwhile, the public uprising has gone beyond jallikattu, attained a critical mass as an assertion of Tamil identity and culture and metamorphosed into a protest against mainstream political parties. It is time the protesters took a step back and let the legislative and judicial institutions determine the future of jallikattu. It is also time for them to reassess the cruelty and the risks to life posed by the sport, and link any demand to its reintroduction with the strictest of regulations. Two people were tragically killed and over 120 injured in the jallikattu at Pudukottai on Sunday. A culture that legitimises such mindless and unnecessary death is not Tamil culture. In fact, it is no culture at all.


✌✌  America’s era of anger  ✌✌


Despite the belligerence and rhetoric of his campaign, some had hoped that Donald Trump, in his inaugural address, would seek to heal the wounds created by a divisive campaign. But the 45th President of the U.S. trumped those expectations with a speech that was resonant of campaign rhetoric rather than one that should have been a vision statement for a united future under his leadership. Certain omissions in the speech were stark. The humility that American Presidents usually embrace in their first address was missing. So was the historical emphasis on American values. No word of thanks for the work of his predecessor, Barack Obama. Instead, Mr. Trump continued his attacks on the Washington establishment, vowing to end the “American carnage”, put “America First” in all policy decisions and eradicate “radical Islamic terror” from the “face of the earth”. These remarks, along with his first set of decisions in the White House, offer an indication of the priorities. Mr. Trump has already issued an executive order to roll back certain aspects of Obamacare, a health-care programme which the former President fought long and hard to get passed in Congress. Pages on LGBT rights, climate change and Obamacare are already removed from the White House website. The administration is also planning a missile defence system that could trigger a nuclear arms race. Put together, the Trump team is likely to pursue a hardline social conservative agenda buttressed by economic protectionism and passionate nationalism.
This poses a new set of challenges, for the U.S. and the rest of the world. First, American liberalism faces a major crisis. The hundreds of thousands of women who thronged several cities in the U.S. on Saturday to protest against him show how divided the country is. Second, if the world’s largest economy, the main pillar of the global economic order, turns protectionist, it would have far-reaching impact on other major economies. This means the current crisis in globalisation, which in a way helped Mr. Trump’s rise, is likely to deepen. Third, Mr. Trump’s foreign policy direction, especially his disdain towards multilateralism and unfriendly approach towards China, is confrontational. He has repeatedly said he is a deal-maker and will get the “best deals” for the U.S. But in international diplomacy, his business logic may not work. Finally, how Mr. Trump is going to meet the tall promises he has made to rally supporters, largely the anxious, angered, anti-establishment white working class. He has unleashed forces of extreme nationalism which many hoped belonged to a bygone era.


✌✌✌✌   THE ECONOMIC TIMES   ✌✌✌✌

✌✌  Army’s very own caste system, Orderlies must be abolished  ✌✌ 


On Friday, January 13, an online petition of an ‘orderly’ — a low-ranking soldier of the army — went viral when he complained about his routine task of polishing the shoes of his superior officer. India’s navy and air force have discontinued with this practice of retaining orderlies, or ‘batmen’ as they are often called. The latter word is a derivative from French, for a soldier deputed to carry his officer’s rations and pack horses to battle. As forms of warfare changed, most modern armed forces got rid of these positions, which turned fighting men into personal servants of officers.
The British, from whose military we retained this practice, scrapped orderlies after World War 2. The government must tell the army, which retains an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 such orderlies, to scrap the post and induct them into frontline rolls.
It could dramatically improve the morale of these men. This is especially true in India, which is deeply stratified by casteimposed hierarchies. A person decides to leave his village and join the army to, among other things, better his social standing among his peers.
Given that, forcing him to polish shoes and iron the clothes of his ‘master’ must come as a demeaning shock. As defence minister, the instinctively egalitarian A K Antony pushed for these changes. Two committees of generals hemmed and hawed. Among their suggestions: one, to rename orderlies as sahayaks, or helpers; two, to abolish the post, and hire civilians instead. The first is ridiculous; the second will add a fresh burden to the military budget, without adding to the army’s fighting ability. Abolish the post of orderlies, make fighting men out of them. Let officers acquire shoe-polish and clothes irons, not to speak of some elbow grease, and get some parity into a deeply feudal military force.

News Papers EDITORIALS - 21 JANUARY 2017

✌✌✌✌  THE HINDU   ✌✌✌✌

✌✌  Living in a hotter world  ✌✌

The world has turned the page on 2016 with the worrying revelation that it was the warmest year on the instrumental record since the late 19th century, and the hottest of three record-breaking years in a row. While the rise in global average surface temperature by about 1.1º C last year over the pre-industrial era was aggravated by the El Nino phenomenon of 2015-16, the trend is a warning to all countries that they cannot afford to rely on carbon-intensive growth any longer. Explaining the scientific view, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies points to the rise in temperature as being driven “largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.” The warming pattern must be seen in the context of declining sea ice cover in the Arctic, compounding the loss of ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic. In the Arctic, which is witnessing a decline in the extent of sea ice in the lowest month at the rate of about 13% every decade, melting creates a vicious circle of more exposure of ‘dark areas’ to sunlight, higher melting and more dark surface absorbing heat. Such phenomena accelerate the rate of global warming, with consequences through climate change for coastal areas, access to water, farming and human health.
A warming globe with changes to the climate in the form of altered rainfall, drought, floods, lost biodiversity and reduced crop yields would particularly affect millions in China and India. It is heartening that Chinese President Xi Jinping asserted the importance of the Paris Agreement on climate change at the Davos meeting of the World Economic Forum, and virtually cautioned incoming U.S. President Donald Trump against reneging on it. India’s own commitment to the climate accord must be strengthened with clear and unambiguous actions. This should lead to a scaling up of renewable energy and measurable decline in use of fossil fuels. Union Power Minister Piyush Goyal has promised a steady increase in solar power capacity, going beyond the target of 100 gigawatts by 2022, but such goals become more credible when there is action in individual States to make the average citizen a partner in the effort. States should be ranked on their policies that help unlock investment in the sector, including domestic rooftop installations, and the weak service infrastructure for solar should be upgraded without delay. India’s water stress is heightened by extreme weather episodes, and this requires an enhanced policy response to protect farmers, livestock and vulnerable communities.


✌✌   A deserved commutation   ✌✌


Chelsea Manning, the American whistle-blower slapped with a 35-year sentence for leaking classified State Department documents to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, has had her sentence commuted by the outgoing President, Barack Obama. Earlier known as Bradley, she has gender dysphoria, is undergoing hormone therapy for gender reassignment, and has twice attempted suicide while being held at a men’s prison. She has served more than six years of her sentence and, assuming Mr. Obama’s commutation is implemented, could hope to be freed by May 2017. Even as White House officials underscored that the 44th President had commuted the sentence, not pardoned her, and thus had not removed a federal crime from her record, Mr. Obama insisted that “justice has been served”. Central to his argument was the fact that she had served time in jail after pleading guilty to 10 of the 22 charges, relating to espionage, fraud and theft, for releasing 2,50,000 diplomatic cables, 5,00,000 military reports, military videos from Iraq and Afghanistan, and dossiers on prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay. When the cables and reports were blasted across the Internet and select media outlets by WikiLeaks in 2010, Mr. Obama had to send the then U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to various world capitals and assuage America’s allies in the face of uncomplimentary private comments by U.S. diplomats.
Mr. Obama’s decision to commute the sentence could not have come at a more fraught juncture in U.S. politics. WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange, holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, had promised to allow himself to be extradited to the U.S. if Mr. Obama freed Ms. Manning. Now he says he will abide by that promise. However, WikiLeaks also put itself at the centre of what has been a difficult American election resulting in the victory of Donald Trump, when it published emails of the Democratic National Committee allegedly stolen by hackers with links to Russia. Those leaks, along with other cyber-malfeasance associated with the highest levels of government in Moscow, are considered by many angry Democrats to have derailed Ms. Clinton’s run at the White House. Has Mr. Obama done a good turn to a group that played a role in the Democratic Party’s debacle in November last year? Has he opened up his party to attacks by Republicans for sending a “troubling message” to future leakers with information that could play into the hands of America’s enemies? Maybe. Yet what he has done for sure is to mitigate, in small measure, the U.S.’s reputation as a superpower that preaches about democratic values such as the right to dissent and freedom of speech, yet at home has come down with an iron fist on whistle-blowers.


✌✌✌✌   THE ECONOMIC TIMES   ✌✌✌✌

✌✌  Good news must move to better on schools  ✌✌

There is cause for cautious optimism on the state of school education. There have been improvements, surveys show, especially in the elementary grades in learning outcomes, powered by progress in government schools. But large numbers of students still do not learn enough at age-appropriate levels. It is also too early to suggest that the improvements are a trend; and change is not even, with some states slipping. The broad findings of the 2016 edition of the Annual Status of Education Report, facilitated by Pratham, an education sector NGO, are in tune with NCERT’s National Achievement Survey for class III, V and X (2014, 2015), and the 2015-16 elementary education survey by District Information System for Education (DISE).
These assessments are not simply periodic state-of-the-union statements but a guide to practices and interventions that help improve learning outcomes and ascertain problem areas to help design policies and interventions that augment learning. There appears to be renewed trust in government schools, India’s largest network: private school enrolment is stable in all but three states. The other significant finding is the improved enrolment for 15-16 year olds, suggesting a stemming of the dropout rate at the end of class VIII. School amenities have improved, but not libraries and computer availability.
But education is not about recalling information but the ability to use the classroom learning to unseen and new situations. NCERT’s surveys find that outcomes on conceptual clarity and understanding are lagging. This points to the need for changing the way teaching is undertaken and to focus on augmenting conceptual clarity and analytic ability of students — after all, today’s students will grow up in a world of rapid technological change calling for ever new skills.

News Papers EDITORIALS - 20 JANUARY 2017

✌✌✌✌  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.

News Papers EDITORIALS - 19 JANUARY 2017

✌✌✌✌  THE HINDU   ✌✌✌✌

✌✌  More than symbolic  ✌✌

Mulayam Singh Yadav can certainly tell friends from foes. In the Samajwadi Party dispute that was before the Election Commission of India, the important thing for him was to ensure that the party symbol, the bicycle, did not get frozen. That would have helped neither him nor his son, Akhilesh Yadav, who is leading the split in the SP; worse, it would have paved the way for his principal rival, the BJP, to return to power given the serious disadvantages of fighting an election with a symbol that is unfamiliar to the electorate. By not battling hard for the bicycle symbol, and not submitting before the ECI any affidavit to show his support among elected representatives and party office-bearers, he may be perceived as letting down his own faction in the party. But his first priority was not winning the battle inside his extended family, but beating his political opponents in the larger war. The surrender of the symbol would have effectively ended the SP’s fight in the election. Both father and son knew this, and carefully averted such an eventuality. Mr. Akhilesh Yadav responded to his father’s gesture by seeking his blessings, and Mr. Mulayam Singh sent his son a list of his faction’s candidates who needed to be accommodated. The SP is not in self-destruct mode. Both factions are playing their cards on the basis of cold calculations, not hot-headed impulse.
The split, and the retention of the election symbol, appear to have compensated in some measure for the party’s failings on the governance front over the last five years. Mr. Akhilesh Yadav is now able to seek a fresh mandate on his own terms; moreover, he can, with some degree of credibility, blame the shortcomings on the party’s old guard. Also, an alliance with the Congress is now very much within the realm of possibility. Mr. Mulayam Singh was averse to a tie-up, but Mr. Akhilesh Yadav seems to enjoy a better rapport with the Congress leadership. The SP only gained from the split, and it might have lost nothing at all in terms of organisational muscle. After giving up the fight for the symbol, Mr. Mulayam Singh does not seem too eager to take the fight with his son to the polling booths, so long as his loyalists got their share of seats. In a State known for strategic voting, where voter polarisation with the BJP at one extreme is now a reality, the SP might have benefited by merely pushing itself ahead of the BSP as a principal contender. That much Mr. Akhilesh Yadav appears to have done for himself and the party. But the question is whether he can bank entirely on his promise for the future, and erase public memory of his past performance.


✌✌  The hard road to Brexit  ✌✌

Prime Minister Theresa May’s speech on her government’s plans for Britain’s exit from the EU was many things at once — a declaration of intent, a warning, a motivational talk and a balancing act with several contradictions. She painted the first stroke on the negotiation canvas: Britain had chosen a “hard Brexit”. It would leave the single market and with it gain more control over its borders and its laws, some of which are currently under the oversight of the European Courts of Justice. This, Ms. May said, is what the people had chosen. At the same time, the U.K. would seek to negotiate a deal that would give it as much access to the single market without being a part of it. It would seek a modified customs union membership to be able to negotiate its own trade treaties with non-EU countries, and build what the Prime Minister called a “truly global Britain”. This vision had been built up by Ms. May since the June 2016 referendum, and her speech reiterated it was the alternative, and better, future that awaited Britain. The Prime Minister pushed and pulled at the EU, with praise and warning. Ms. May spoke of her country’s good intentions for the continent and her optimism for a good deal with Europe, but said she would accept a no-deal over a bad one. She warned that it would be “calamitously” harmful to Europe if it penalised the U.K. for leaving. She spoke of wanting to strike a trade deal with the EU but hinted that if it did not get a good deal the U.K. had the rest of the world to trade with, and the option to offer tax incentives to attract “the best companies and the biggest investors”.
Ms. May, who was herself a “Remainer”, is trying to make the most of the referendum results for the U.K., and this is her job. It is in this context that her speech must be seen. Neither the British government nor those who supported the move to leave the EU should harbour any illusions that some of the goals outlined in the speech will be difficult to achieve. The EU, which according to recent data accounts for approximately half the U.K.’s imports and exports, is likely to be overwhelmingly important to it after the exit. It is not just the EU that will experience great harm from a bad deal. Trade deals with non-EU countries such as India are likely to involve greater movement of people across borders and this is bound to raise difficult immigration issues again. The Scottish Parliament has now reiterated its resolve to discuss with Downing Street Scotland’s continuation in the single market, and a second referendum for Scottish independence is now more likely. Nobody said it would be easy.


✌✌✌✌   THE ECONOMIC TIMES   ✌✌✌✌

✌✌   Government can’t afford universal basic income; NREGA is the dole it’s looking for   ✌✌


The government is reported to be considering a social security scheme in which it would introduce either a universal basic income or a dole restricted to the most vulnerable. Let us be clear on one thing. A universal basic income can be afforded only by a highly developed economy where government expenditure already accounts for upwards of 40% of GDP and tax collections are not far behind. India, with a tax/GDP ratio of less than 17%, is not in a position even to fairly fund basic healthcare and physical infrastructure, besides sovereign functions of defence, internal security, currency and external relations. Universal coverage of benefits must await greater levels of prosperity and internal cohesion. A dole for the most vulnerable, on the other hand, is both feasible and desirable. More to the point, we already have it. It is called the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA). Its nomenclature is misleading. It is not an employment scheme, but a dole.
Willingness to turn up for doing manual work figures in the scheme as a foolproof self-selection method to make sure that the village landlords also do not end up claiming the benefit. Setting a wage level that is close to a desirable minimum wage but below it was meant to put upward pressure on rural wages and prevent NREGA work from displacing actual rural wage work. In the course of its implementation and thanks to faulty legal interventions, the original purpose of NREGA has become diffused. The task now is to refocus attention on the original NREGA scheme, channelling payments for work done under the scheme to Aadhaar-linked bank or post office accounts. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, especially when we have one merrily rolling along in the countryside at a brisk pace.

News Papers EDITORIALS - 18 JANUARY 2017

✌✌✌✌  THE HINDU   ✌✌✌✌

✌✌  A wake-up call  ✌✌

flurry of videos has emerged in the social media in recent days showing jawans of both the paramilitary forces and the Army complaining against a host of issues from diet to colonial-era practices. While these are disciplinary breaches, they are a good reason to initiate a detailed study into the internal health of our security establishment. The present lot of videos began early last week when BSF constable Tej Bahadur Yadav posted a series of them complaining about burnt parathas and watery lentil curry served along the Line of Control. It was almost as if he was opening the floodgates. From the Army, Lance Naik Yagya Pratap Singh of 42 Infantry Brigade expressed his grievances against the sahayak system. He alleged that professional soldiers were being forced to wash clothes, polish boots and walk dogs for senior officers, and that he was being victimised with court martial proceedings for complaining against the practice. Nursing Assistant Naik Ram Bhagat of the Army complained in another video about their rations, that they were only getting about 40 per cent of the menu items allotted. He also complained about the buddy system in the Army, in which soldiers are deputed to be with officers and end up doing their personal chores. Yet another video of an Army jawan showed him singing about the difficulties they face and discrimination by officers. He spoke about leave being denied for 10 months, poor food and other issues.
The videos quickly grabbed national attention. From the Prime Minister’s Office to the Army chief, the senior leadership has been quick to respond. Both the PMO and Home Minister Rajnath Singh sought an immediate report from the paramilitary forces, while Chief of the Army Staff General Bipin Rawat ordered the provision of grievance and redress boxes. However, many of the responses, especially from the middle- and senior-rung leadership of the Army and the paramilitary forces, spelt almost outright denial. Without doubt the videos are serious disciplinary breaches, and they must be viewed keeping in mind the possibilities of such rampant access and use of social media ending up assisting the enemy. The resort to social media to air grievances could compromise national security, especially when the forces are in sensitive locations. But that should not take the attention away from the larger malaise reflected in them, and it is in tackling them that the senior leadership, both in the executive and the security establishment, must spend time now. The videos are a wake-up call.


 ✌✌   In the nick of time   ✌✌

The Goods and Services Tax Council has made some breakthroughs on outstanding negotiables that were holding up the introduction of the indirect tax regime. A compromise has been reached between the Centre and the States on the formula for administrative control over taxpayers under the GST, which will subsume myriad existing State and Central levies on commercial activity. By giving up on its formula to split such control by assuming the authority to levy GST on all services entities and manufacturing firms with ₹1.5 crore or more annual turnover, the Centre has shown a willingness to meet the States more than halfway. The new control-sharing system appears simpler to administer. Now, 90 per cent of all GST assessees with a turnover of up to ₹1.5 crore will come under the watch of the States and 10 per cent under that of the Centre, with both getting to assess half of the firms with a turnover over ₹1.5 crore. More important, it gives States, many of which had claimed at recent GST Council meetings revenue losses following the demonetisation of currency notes, the leeway to claim that they have struck a better deal with the Centre on a reform that is now inevitable.
With the Centre finally laying to rest its hopes of an April 1, 2017 rollout and eyeing a ‘more realistic’ July 1 date, it has some room to tinker with a few indirect taxes in the Budget to provide a short-term pre-GST stimulus to the economy that is facing a flurry of growth downgrade projections. Since the trickiest issues between the Centre and the States are now resolved and only legislative drafts remain to be approved when the Council meets next on February 18, it is an opportune time to address some of the concerns raised by another key stakeholder — industry. Firms have indicated they would need about six months to gear up for the new tax regime once the laws, rules and all the minutiae of implementation, including the rates for different products and services, are known. More clarity and finesse are also needed on the harsh penal provisions, including the power to arrest, proposed in the draft GST law (that lists out 21 offences) and the creation of an anti-profiteering authority that can act against firms that fail to pass on benefits of tax rate cuts to consumers. While it is important to protect the consumer, a clear rule-based framework is necessary to ensure that one of the biggest gains envisaged from GST — an exponential change in ease of doing business — isn’t scuttled by fears of a return to inspector raj. For a government committed to ending tax terrorism, taking a step back to meticulously review the possible gaps between intent and implementation may be worthwhile — even if it means delaying the launch by a few fortnights.


✌✌✌✌   THE ECONOMIC TIMES   ✌✌✌✌

✌✌  A-list entertainers in US are snubbing Donald Trump  ✌✌ 

A-listers from America’s entertainment industry are staying away from Donald Trump’s inauguration gala. Trump has said, sorry, tweeted, that he doesn’t care, the real stars are American people and they are invited. Come, come, Mr Trump, you, a television celebrity, know better than most that even American people don’t want to watch American people, they want to watch the stars. There’s no point pretending. Instead, do something about it: create an alt right of popular culture celebrities, who will vigorously compete with mainstream, leftish stars. This ain’t a joke, done well, this can be yuge, because there’s a market for it.
There’s no reason why the market for popular culture, music, for example, can’t reflect the broader political divide in America. If most music and movie stars are Democrat-leaning, and if half the country leans Republican, there’ a ready market for, say, rock’n’roll bands that are as explicitly loyal to the right as many current A-listers are loyal to the left. How to create stars? America knows the formula: televisiontalent shows, clever producers hunting for talent to create boy bands and girl bands, picking a gifted youngster out of obscurity and marketing him/her to the hilt. Note that Trump, a celebrity-obsessed celebrity, knows how to do this. Just ensure that talent that’s groomed has clear political leanings to the right: American Idol, the right-wing version, hosted in glitzy Trump properties, with blanket coverage in Fox TV network and alt right media. Just as conservative and alt right radio hosts have found a ready market, so will alt right entertainment stars.
And once you have a market, you will be taken seriously. After all, only highly marketable leftish popular cultural icons are taken seriously.
Is an explicitly politicised entertainment industry a bad idea? Nope. Entertainment is already politicised. All that we propose is recognise the reality, and exploit an untapped market. And why only America? BJP vs Congress, for example, offers fertile entertainment market opportunities. May be India’s ‘new nationalists’ need a few stars of theirown. There’s a market there for the clever entrepreneur.

News Papers EDITORIALS - 17 JANUARY 2017

✌✌✌✌  THE HINDU   ✌✌✌✌

✌✌  Coming home for the first time  ✌✌

Navjot Singh Sidhu might now describe himself as a “born Congressman” and his joining the Congress as “homecoming”, but he is without doubt driven more by personal ambition than by ideological fervour. After quitting the Bharatiya Janata Party, a constituent of the ruling combine in Punjab led by the Shiromani Akali Dal, Mr. Sidhu explored virtually every political option — floating a new outfit and joining the Aam Aadmi Party — before finally teaming up with the Congress, which was until recently his main rival. He left the BJP and resigned as a Member of Parliament saying he was being asked to stay away from his home State of Punjab by the party leadership. But it was not as if he has been spending a lot of his time since then in Punjab. The cricketer-turned-politician is a television personality as well, and his professional commitments have taken him elsewhere for much of the last few months. No matter how he tries to present his switch of political loyalties, Mr. Sidhu will have a credibility issue tagging him right through his campaign in Punjab. He has been less than entirely honest about his reasons for leaving the BJP, his brief interlude with the AAP, and his new-found love for the Congress. So, instead of harping on peeves such as the treatment he received in the BJP, when he was asked to vacate his Amritsar Lok Sabha seat for Arun Jaitley, Mr. Sidhu may opt to play to his strengths as a star campaigner than portray himself as an administrator-in-waiting.
Mr. Sidhu has his uses as a public speaker to the Congress, but he will be unwilling to limit his role to punchlines and throwaway insults. The AAP did not want to promise to make him its chief ministerial candidate, and similarly the Congress seems reluctant to publicly commit on giving him the post of deputy chief minister (the chief minister’s post is non-negotiable given Captain Amarinder Singh’s status within the party). For a man of his ambitions, Mr. Sidhu could well find himself running too often into conflicts within the Congress, which is never short of regional satraps and middle-rung leaders aspiring to climb to the top. What he brings to the table as a campaigner will be a huge plus for the Congress, but it remains to be seen how big a bite he will want of the post-election pie. But for Mr. Sidhu, as for the Congress, the first task is to get the better of the SAD-BJP combine by capitalising on the anti-incumbency sentiment, and highlighting the agrarian crisis and the drug menace enveloping the State. The post-election fight can wait.


✌✌  Vagaries of the job market  ✌✌

The mismatch between the number of people who annually reach working age and the availability of jobs has been a matter of constant concern globally during the better part of the period since the global financial crisis of the last decade. The International Labour Organisation’s latest forecast that a few more millions are set to join the pool of the jobless during this year and the next, is in line with its own previous estimates. In any case, with the growth in global gross domestic product registering a six-year low in 2016, expectations of generation of new jobs were always going to be low. But a no-less-serious concern in the ‘World Employment and Social Outlook 2017’ pertains to the stubborn challenge of reducing the extent of vulnerability that currently affects about 42 per cent of the total working population. This concern refers to lack of access to contributory social protection schemes among the self-employed and allied categories, unlike their counterparts in the wage-earning and salaried classes. The former segment accounts for nearly 50 per cent of workers in the emerging economies and 80 per cent in developing countries. The hardships faced by these 1.4 billion working people will become more apparent when seen in the backdrop of either the absence of strong welfare legislation or its effective enforcement in a majority of these countries. It is no surprise that besides Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia has been the most affected by such volatile conditions.
To be sure, the overall share of these vulnerable workers dropped from 46 per cent of total employment in 2015 to 42 per cent in 2016. But the latest report projects only a mere 0.2 percentage point rate of reduction through 2017-18. In comparison, it says the proportion of the population in jobs characterised by vulnerability declined by an average annual rate of 0.5 percentage points in the previous decade. As a result of the relatively slow reversal rates in more recent years, these numbers are projected to increase globally by 11 million a year. The other implication of an increase in the number of people facing vulnerable working conditions is the real danger this poses of a slowdown in reducing the incidence of working poverty. It is this celebrated rise in income levels in the lowest rungs of the population that lent the current phase of globalisation the social and political legitimacy, a phase that has otherwise posed the risks of economic dislocation and unprecedented mass migration. The challenge for policymakers worldwide is to ensure that incomes do not fall below the levels of basic subsistence as the world marches towards the poverty reduction targets under the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.


✌✌✌✌   THE ECONOMIC TIMES   ✌✌✌✌

✌✌  Better education: Not by money alone  ✌✌

Expenditure on education as share of GDP has fluctuated between 3.55 per cent and 4 per cent, falling short of the 6 per cent of GDP promised by successive governments.
Nonetheless, over the last decade, education has accounted for nearly 50 per cent of total social services spending. Despite the increased funding, poor learning outcomes mark the education system, irrespective of the school’s ownership.
Assessments by private/non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and government agencies find at least a third of students failing to meet the required minimum learning levels in mathematics and reading comprehension.
Improving learning outcomes will require looking beyond funding to the central component of an effective education system: the teacher.
Despite better pay and job security, government school teachers tend to perform poorly compared to their private counterparts. Remedying this requires that teachers have greater autonomy, assessment and accountability.
Teachers must have the freedom to devise the curriculum in a manner suited to their classroom, going beyond the textbook to design of lessons tailored to the students rather than a mythical matrix.
The Economic Survey 2016 reports that only 79 per cent of teachers are professionally qualified. More important is a system that assesses teachers regularly not just on their knowledge but also methods.
Training that is in sync with the realities of their schools and classrooms to help teachers be the best they can be. Finally, teachers must be held accountable, not by a faraway centralised system but at the local level to the school administration and school management committees.
A system that rewards performers, helps laggards improve, and punishes the habitual poor performers is essential.
Schools, particularly in the government system, need to participate in international assessments like PISA and TIMSS. More money for education is welcome and necessary but it is not everything.
Fixing our schools requires optimum leveraging of existing funding, and systemic changes to achieve both empowerment and accountability.