|
|
|
|
|
|
Round the States
CORRUPTION, CBI AND VIGILANCE, By Inder Jit, 11 April 2024 |
|
|
REWIND
New Delhi, 11 April 2024
CORRUPTION, CBI AND VIGILANCE
By Inder Jit
(Released on 12 January 1988)
The Central Vigilance
Commission’s latest report should make all those interested in good, clean
Government sit up. The report was presented to Parliament over a month ago. But
it has not yet received the attention it deserves --- either from the Government
leaders and MPs or from the media. This is despite the fact that the Central
Vigilance Commission (CVC) was set up amid great expectations by Nehru and Lal
Bahadur Shastri in February 1964 in pursuance of the recommendations of the
Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption. Many of us have been expecting
the Commission to be made more effective under Mr Rajiv Gandhi, who has spoken
time and again of an all-out war against corruption. On July 24 last, the Prime
Minister asserted that the drive against corruption would be intensified at the
administrative and social levels. Sadly, however, this has not happened. On the
contrary, even the limited effectiveness of the CVC has been undermined and its
functioning hamstrung. This has constrained the Commission to conclude its 23rd
report relating to 1986 with the warning: “Any lukewarm approach to vigilance
would be a short-sighted, penny-wise and pound-foolish policy.”
To begin from the beginning.
Under the terms of the Government of India resolution of February 11, 1964,
moved by Lal Bahadur Shastri the CVC was assigned three functions: (i) To have
complaints of misconduct or lack of integrity on the part of public servants
looked into and thereafter as may be necessary to advise as to the disciplinary
proceedings or prosecution to be launched. Where disciplinary proceedings are
held, the Commission also advises the disciplinary authority about the penalty
to be imposed, based on its independent and impartial appreciation of the
outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. (ii) The Commission has been given the
responsibility of exercising a general check and supervision over vigilance and
anti-corruption work in the Ministries/Departments and Public Undertakings etc.
and for that purpose receives from administrative authorities progress reports
and statistical returns. And (iii) When it appears that any procedure or
practice in administration affords scope for corruption or misconduct, the
Commission may advise that such procedure or practice should be appropriately
changed.
Importantly, the Commission has
been given the same measure of independence and autonomy as the UPSC. Its
jurisdiction extends to all employees of the Central Government, Central Public
Sector Undertakings and other Corporate bodies. However, ordinarily the
Commission advises in individual disciplinary cases only in respect of Gazetted
officers of the Union Government, SHOS of the Delhi Police; the officers in the
pay scales beginning with Rs 1800 and above in the public sector undertakings;
officers in Scale III and above in public sector banks, the officers in the
scale of pay the minimum of which is Rs 1,760 or above in Port Trusts/Dock
Labour Boards; the officers in the scale of pay the minimum of which is Rs
2,250 or above in the insurance companies and those drawing a basic pay of Rs
1,000 p.m. or above in local bodies or autonomous and other similar bodies.
Equally importantly, the CVC is actively aided by the Central Bureau of
Investigation which was set up about the same time to help investigate corruption
on a systematic and organised basis. The CVC may on its own direct the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate complaints and furnish reports.
Things worked out well at the
start. The “19th Year of Freedom”, an Indian National Congress
publication brought out in 1965-66, claimed that “the anti-corruption measures
initiated during the last two years have had a significant impact. Many State
Governments have taken similar steps and the drive against corruption appears
to have assumed the dimensions of truly national effort.” The CVC achieved much
with the help of the CBI, which undertook many overdue probes. But the CVC now
finds that it is no longer getting much-needed help from the CBI, originally
conceived as the principal tool at its disposal. The reason? The CBI, according
to the report, has of late been increasingly busy with cases of conventional
crimes, economic offences, smuggling etc. Consequently, the CVC has bemoaned in
its latest report that the special investigative body has not been able to give
its whole-time attention to anti-corruption work for which the organisation was
primarily set up. Indeed, the CVC has not stopped there. It has candidly
expressed the view that “there should be a body, exclusively charged with
anti-corruption work, to do greater justice to this work.”
Appropriately, the Commission
has, over the years, kept a close vigil over the public sector undertakings in
view of the huge national investment and the spread of their industrial and commercial
activities. Surprisingly, however, a brake was applied on this activity by the
Bureau of Public Enterprises in October 1986. It issued instructions that in
future vigilance cases of only Board-level appointees of public sector enterprises
need be referred to the CVC for advice. It said: “In respect of appointees
below Board-level, no reference need be made to the Central Vigilance
Commissioner”. The reason for the change, according to the CVC, appears to be
that since the Board of Directors was the appointing authority for below the board-level
personnel, they should have the power to take disciplinary action against such
personnel. But this stance overlooks the fact that the role of the CVC has
always been advisory and does not in any way interfere with the independence or
autonomy of the public sector undertakings and of the disciplinary authority to
take final decision even in vigilance matters. The advisory role of the CVC had
never been incompatible with the ultimate decision-making authority of the
disciplinary authorities.
The report points out: “The
cases are not few where those responsible for running the undertaking were
themselves involved in financial rackets or that they had shielded those under
them responsible for grave misconduct and wastage of public funds for personal
benefit.” Independence and autonomy, the CVC asserts, should not “be construed
as licence for malpractices and corruption”. Thus, the public sector, which is
responsible for most of the public spending, “should not remain outside some
central vigilance overseeing and accountability to proper norms of public
conduct”. The role of the CVC for overseeing vigilance work as an external
advisory agency, if anything, “need to be further strengthened, particularly in
the prevailing situation when malpractices and corruption of a serious
magnitude continue to haunt the public sector”. The very existence of an
independent central vigilance agency has a preventive value besides providing
the public sector with such benefits as independent professional advice on
vigilance matters and uniform standards for handling vigilance work.
The decision to limit the role
of the Commission vis-a-vis the public sector undertakings not only violates
the terms of reference of the Commission as contained in the Resolution of
February 1964, but also the spirit behind the creation of an Independent
Commission. The Commission is firmly of the view that “this decision of
Government would lead to a big set-back in tackling the problem of corruption
in public sector undertakings and it is a retrograde step”. In fact, the Commission feels that there is clear need “to
strengthen the vigilance set up qualitatively as well as quantitatively in
order to keep a watch over corruption prone areas and corruption prone persons
especially in the public sector undertakings where large investments have been
made”. It finds that the attention paid to vigilance work so far in some of the
public undertakings is “totally inadequate”. The department of vigilance,
in its view, has to be accepted as an integral part of sound management for
improving the financial health and practices of the organisation. “If vigilance
units in the public sector undertakings are headed by officers of experience
and integrity, they would be able to provide valuable assistance in improving
procedures and practices and plugging loopholes in the system, if any.”
The Commission’s report draws
attention to many other points: Evidence of a new five-star culture and
ostentatious living in the public sector. Administrative constraints faced by
the CVC, including the long-standing need for additional staff over the years.
But the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, Mr U.C. Agarwal,
is clear that corruption at the administrative level cannot be eliminated
without tackling it at the public and political levels. Early in 1986, Mr
Agarwal, in a talk delivered to the Association of Indian Diplomats, listed
some of the causes for the fall in standards of integrity and efficiency in
public administration as follows: “The general social climate has become highly
materialistic and no scruples or ethical values worry the people in going
ahead. The spread of materialistic culture has become so widespread that all is
considered to be fair in making money. No means appear to be questionable. The
emphasis appears to be more on ‘making’ rather than ‘earning’ money. There are
increasing number of cases of vulgar display of wealth by the socially high-ups
in their style of living, housing and social functions.”
Alas, little
has been done to fight corruption at the political level. What is worse, a
solemn promise made for fighting corruption remains to be implemented. On
August 25, 1985, the Rajiv Government came forward with its eagerly-awaited
Lokpal Bill to provide for the appointment of an ombudsman to enquire into allegations
of misconduct against public men and public servants and wanted it enacted in
two days. Following protests in the Lok Sabha against rushing through with this
important legislation, the Bill was referred to a Joint Select Committee of
Parliament. The Joint Committee was asked to submit its report by March 1986. However,
this did not happen. Instead, the term now stands extended up to early May this
year… the last day of the Budget Session of 1988. All in all, the powers that
be need to be clear about what they want to do. The CVC’s report, which lays
emphasis on preventive vigilance, is a timely reminder of the gap between
practice and promise. The issue raised in it needs to be discussed in
Parliament. We should remember that Parliamentary democracy is a civilised form
of Government. It cannot survive the depredations of a corrupt administration
and corrupt politicians. --- INFA
(Copyright, India News &
Feature Alliance)
|
|
Unemployment Challenges: CREATION & QUALITY VITAL, By Dhurjati Mukherjee, 10 April 2024 |
|
|
Open Forum
New Delhi, 10 April 2024
Unemployment Challenges
CREATION & QUALITY VITAL
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
Providing
jobs is indeed a big change for a populous country like India with a huge
number entering the labour force every year. Moreover, with improvement in
education, not just general education but technical too, there is an abundance
of job seekers in the country. As usual, guarantees, not just promises, are made
during elections by political parties but there is no direct mention of how
much employment opportunity would be created.
The “India
Employment Report 2024: Youth education, employment and skills” by the
Institute for Human Development (IHD) and International Labour Organisation
(ILO),recently released presents extremely concerning facts on India’s labour
market over the last decade. Each year, around 70-80 lakh youths are added to
the labour force but between 2012 and 2019, there was almost zero growth in
employment – just 0.01 per cent.
The
Reportexamines the challenge of youth employment in the context of the emerging
economic, labour market, educational, and skills scenarios in India and changes
over the past two decades and is primarily based on analysis of data from the
National Sample Surveys and the Periodic Labour Force Surveys. It found that 60
per cent of casual workers across the nation find themselves denied the minimum
wage they are entitled to. “As much as 62 per cent of the unskilled casual
agricultural workers and 70 per cent of such workers in the construction sector
at the all-India level did not receive the prescribed daily minimum wages in
2022”, the report stated.
Labour
economist Ravi Srivastava, one of the key figures behind the Report,
highlighted the systemic exploitation faced by unskilled workers contracted
through intermediary entities. These workers often find themselves
short-changed as contractors siphon off a portion of their earnings, leaving
them deprived of even the basic minimum wage.
Highlighting
the scarcity of quality job creation in higher productivity manufacturing and
services post 2019, the report found that though there was a notable shift in
employment from low-productivity agriculture to relatively high productivity
non-agricultural sectors, the first two decades of this millennium, the
momentum slowed and ultimately reversed between 2019 and 2022. An important
point made in the report is the lack of employable skills, but doubts have been
raised on this issue as work-oriented skills are being imparted, both by
government and private institutions all over the country. It is the demand
constraint that is the key factor in job creation.
As
rightly pointed out by Srivastava and several other experts better quality jobs
are concentrated among youths with a high level of education. It may also be
pertinent to mention here that this education, which is mostly imparted from
very well-known private institutions, are very costly and beyond the means of a
major section of middle-income groups not to speak of the low-income segments.
Thus, quality employment has been concentrated among the rich class who can
afford high quality education to their children.
Another report
of the ILO says “83 percent of jobless
Indians are youth, only 17.5 percent of youth in rural areas are engaged in
regular work, the share of people employed in industry and manufacturing has
remained the same since 2011 at 26 percent of the total workforce, the
percentage of youth involved in economic activities decreased from 42 percent
in 2012 to 37 percent by 2022.
The
Congress, highly critical of BJP has stated, “Modi government promised 20 crore
jobs in past 10 years but snatched 12 crore jobs from the youth”. It’s also
alleged the youth unemployment tripled under the Modi government. In its just released
manifesto, Congress haspromised minimum
wage of Rs 400 per day, employment guarantee in urban areas and Rs 1 lakh with
apprenticeship to every graduate and diploma holder for one year. The BJP is
yet to release its manifesto.
Theproblem
of underemployment is also related to MGNREGS programme, which is only for 100
days a year but poor allocation by the Centre can provide employment for not
more than 50 days. It is necessary to ensure that this programme should provide
at least say 125-150 days’ full employment, keeping in view the critical
situation in the job front, the government could levy a super-rich tax of one
percent to meet the additional expenses.
Experts
have rightly pointed out that the minimum the government can do is to increase
the allocation for the above programme and also start a similar programme for
the urban sector. There are many jobs that are neglected in the cities that
include waste collection and recycling, helping in road repairs, keeping parks
cleaner, etc. Even after the recent hike in rates of MGNREGS, these are less
than the minimum wage of around eight important states. The well- known social
activist, Nikhil Dey, has pointed out that the minimum wage remaining lower
that the state minimum wage meant denial of basic standard of living to the
MGNREGA workers.
In this
connection, it may be pertinent to refer to a stark reality that found millions
of women work in Indian households out of which over 67 percent have been
employed without written contracts, while 77 percent face violence and 85
percent have no social security, leading to a web of exploitative conditions
that is masked by informality. The official figures, a cruel mockery of
reality, thus miss up to 45 million workers. This vast discrepancy, reflecting
the informal nature of the work, hinders efforts to monitor violations and
enforce legal protections. Government initiatives, such as the e-Shram portal
for informal workers, have failed to make any headway.
According
to the Periodic Labour Force Survey, over 80 percent of these women journey
from rural areas seeking better economic prospects. Around 70 percent of these
women fall in their prime working years and yet find themselves stuck in a low
wage informal sector. It is debatable whether India’s economic progress can
stand on the broken backs and the bruised spirits of these women.
As
regards high-end jobs, reports indicate that in the current year placements in
higher educational institutions recorded anywhere between 35 to 55 percent. In
addition to fewer offers from companies, there are reports of lower salary
packages. In fact, the impact of the global scenario on the educational sector
in the country is quite visible with most government and private institutions
reporting around 20-25 percent drop in recruitment. One can find many
post-graduate students in management or engineering without suitable jobs as
most of such candidates do not want to accept a job which offers a salary below
Rs 20,000-25,000.
The
situation is thus quite challenging, and the government is silent on how it envisages
creation of employment opportunities.Technology-driven manufacturing with
artificial intelligence expected to play a crucial role in the coming years
obviously goes against employment creation and is indeed a crucial problem for
a populous country like India with a huge workforce. It is imperative that with
educational levels increasing the government just cannot ignore this vital
sector and must come out with an effective plan of action. But before all this,
recruitment in the government – both at the Centre and in the states – needs to
be given top priority.---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Man Our Netas Are Touchy!: HOW MANY WILL YOU PUT IN JAIL?, By Poonam I Kaushish, 9 March 2024 |
|
|
Political Diary
New
Delhi, 9 April 2024
Man Our Netas Are Touchy!
HOW MANY WILL YOU PUT IN JAIL?
By Poonam I Kaushish
One man’s food is another man’s poison. A succinct testimony
to the ongoing maelstrom over growing intolerance for ‘perceived’ disparaging
and derogatory speeches in ongoing poll mania. Resulting in nationwide churning.
“If before
elections, we start putting behind bars everyone who makes allegations on
Youtube, imagine how many will be jailed?” Queried Supreme Court while restoring
bail granted to a YouTuber accused of making derogatory remarks against Tamil
Nadu Chief Minister Stalin and detained by Tamil Nadu Police in 2021.
Emphatically asserting, “Everyone who makes allegations on social media cannot
be put behind bars.”
“We do not think
that by protesting and expressing views he can be said to have misused his liberty….”
Court added while taking note of the FIR filed against him for participating in
a protest opposing Babri Masjid’s demolition wherein he demanded release of
some detained individuals.
Last
year a senior TDP leader was jailed for offensive comments against Andhra
Pradesh Tourism Minister and is facing charges under several sections of the
Indian Penal Code. Controversial Hindu leader Yati Narsinghanand was arrested
in Haridwar for making odious and critical remarks against women 2022 but was
granted bail by Uttarakhand High Court.
In 2021 stand-up
comedian Munawar Faruqui was arrested and denied bail for “poking fun” at Hindu
deities on claims made by a Hindutva vigilante group in Madhya Pradesh. Never
mind, he hadn’t made any statement involving Hindu gods. Leaving it to Supreme
Court which intervened and released him. In
2017, another comedian Tanmay Bhat was booked
for tweeting a meme of Prime Minister Modi with a dog filter on Snapchat.
And how
can one forget a consumer goods giant which was forced to withdraw a Karwa Chauth advertisement celebrating
progressive marriage view featuring a lesbian couple. Or a famous designer’s
“obscene” Mangalsutra billboard which
portrayed a woman wearing a low-neckline dress posing intimately with a man.
Big deal if it aimed to talk about empowerment.
A
clothing brand was accused of “defacing” Diwali by naming its festive
collection Jashn-e-Riwaaz. A
jewellery brand was forced to discontinue a commercial which showed a baby
shower organised by Muslim in-laws for their Hindu bride. Predictably, some BJP
MPs, Bajrang Dal and Yuva Morcha called these “insults to Hindu culture.
Alas, we
have been through seasons of intolerance whereby any film, book or artwork
which pokes fun or is not in sync with our leaders thinking, cause and outlook
is not only banned, vandalized and the offender arrested. Whereby, space for
liberal discussion is becoming narrower shown by repeated incidents of threats,
lynching and banning by self-appointed censors.
Questionably,
is India in an era of political intolerance? Have we lost the ability to accept
criticism? Bordering on a narcissist phobia? Is it mere coincidence or a sign
of an increasingly knee-jerk, reactionary country where one is forced to go
public about a frown, removal from job or punishment?
Is the
polity afraid of clash of ideas in public life? Is Government, Centre or State
crushing free expression, suppressing dissent? Are we so paranoid or intolerant
that any outpouring is viewed as a threat? Underscoring the narrow-minded
climate of political discourse we live in.
Obversely, does criticism of Government or leader
connotate putting a person behind bars? Is this a Government’s way of teaching
us a lesson in rashtra prem and desh bhakti? Do we want to produce
robots who only act at the command of what their leaders and chela thinkers, benefactors and wealth
creators’ desire?
Either
way, India is in the grip of self-styled chauvinism wherein critics,
intellectuals or hoi polloi are soft
targets with imprudent reactions taking over debates and calibrated
decisions. Life is lived in the slim
strip called official and every tweet, satire or defiance treated as a monster.
Big deal if this makes public discourse impoverished and toothless.
As
blinkered, dogma-ridden debates rage on it marks a dangerous political trend of
intolerance vis-à-vis freedom of
expression and personal choices. If this trend goes unchecked society will get
dangerously dogmatic and fragmented. Think. As India marches ahead,
enroute to being Atmanirbhar our
leaders need to realize in a mammoth one billion plus country there would be a
billion views and one is free not accepting views of others as it is a matter
of perception. A statement objectionable to a person might be normal to
another. cannot curtail people’s fundamental rights. At the same time we need to desist from acerbic and
speeches which spew hatred and narrow-mindedness.
Clearly, one cannot curtail people’s fundamental
rights. So do we pander to rabble rousers or muzzle their voices? No. Notably,
no licence should be given to anyone to spread hatred or the perilous
implications of their insidious out-pourings. They need to realise a nation is
primarily a fusion of minds and hearts and secondarily a geographical entity.
Besides, courts safeguard this right whereby citizens
enjoy fundamental right to have different opinions, criticize Government
actions and express disagreement with judicial pronouncements. The aim should be to raise the bar on public
discourse, not lower it any more than has been done.
Alongside,
our netas need to realize criticism
is a sign of a thriving and robust democracy. Take a lesson from leaders
world-wide who are more tolerant about what’s written or depicted about them.
Two classic examples of political freedom are former US President Trump who
continues to be mercilessly satirized globally and ex-Italian
millionaire-playboy-PM Berlusconi. In UK and France people take a lot of
liberties vis-à-vis their rulers.
Undoubtedly, when taking a final call Government and
Court should keep in mind that procedural safeguards almost never work in a
country where the prosecutorial proclivity to arrest overrides all else. An
example: Police used Section 66A of the IT Act long after it was scrapped.
Moreover, conviction rates languish in single digit underlining the scant
evidence that underpins such charges.
Additionally, the Apex Court’s thrust on liberty and
individual freedoms as guaranteed by Article 19. Certainly, the State must be
able to defend itself for what it considers derogatory and offensive but such
action should never come at the cost of Constitutional rights.
Remember,
democracy is not just a system of Government, it is a way in which evolved and
civilised societies organise themselves; within which people live and interact
with one another; based on the values of liberty, equality and fraternity. And
criticism is a sign of a thriving and robust democracy.
At some
point we need to realize that coercion has a thousand fathers, while liberty is
an orphan. As George Orwell said, if liberty means anything at all, it means
the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. Hence, India could do
without netas who distort politics
and in turn destroy democracy and laughter.
India
was conceived as a democratic rather than majoritarian country wherein all
citizens have certain basic rights. When it
comes to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a cardinal value that
is of paramount significance under our Constitutional scheme. Our democracy
will not sustain if we can’t guarantee freedom of speech and expression. What
gives? ----- INFA,
(Copyright
India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Man Our Netas Are Touchy!: HOW MANY WILL YOU PUT IN JAIL?, By Poonam I Kaushish, 9 March 2024 |
|
|
Political Diary
New
Delhi, 9 April 2024
Man Our Netas Are Touchy!
HOW MANY WILL YOU PUT IN JAIL?
By Poonam I Kaushish
One man’s food is another man’s poison. A succinct testimony
to the ongoing maelstrom over growing intolerance for ‘perceived’ disparaging
and derogatory speeches in ongoing poll mania. Resulting in nationwide churning.
“If before
elections, we start putting behind bars everyone who makes allegations on
Youtube, imagine how many will be jailed?” Queried Supreme Court while restoring
bail granted to a YouTuber accused of making derogatory remarks against Tamil
Nadu Chief Minister Stalin and detained by Tamil Nadu Police in 2021.
Emphatically asserting, “Everyone who makes allegations on social media cannot
be put behind bars.”
“We do not think
that by protesting and expressing views he can be said to have misused his liberty….”
Court added while taking note of the FIR filed against him for participating in
a protest opposing Babri Masjid’s demolition wherein he demanded release of
some detained individuals.
Last
year a senior TDP leader was jailed for offensive comments against Andhra
Pradesh Tourism Minister and is facing charges under several sections of the
Indian Penal Code. Controversial Hindu leader Yati Narsinghanand was arrested
in Haridwar for making odious and critical remarks against women 2022 but was
granted bail by Uttarakhand High Court.
In 2021 stand-up
comedian Munawar Faruqui was arrested and denied bail for “poking fun” at Hindu
deities on claims made by a Hindutva vigilante group in Madhya Pradesh. Never
mind, he hadn’t made any statement involving Hindu gods. Leaving it to Supreme
Court which intervened and released him. In
2017, another comedian Tanmay Bhat was booked
for tweeting a meme of Prime Minister Modi with a dog filter on Snapchat.
And how
can one forget a consumer goods giant which was forced to withdraw a Karwa Chauth advertisement celebrating
progressive marriage view featuring a lesbian couple. Or a famous designer’s
“obscene” Mangalsutra billboard which
portrayed a woman wearing a low-neckline dress posing intimately with a man.
Big deal if it aimed to talk about empowerment.
A
clothing brand was accused of “defacing” Diwali by naming its festive
collection Jashn-e-Riwaaz. A
jewellery brand was forced to discontinue a commercial which showed a baby
shower organised by Muslim in-laws for their Hindu bride. Predictably, some BJP
MPs, Bajrang Dal and Yuva Morcha called these “insults to Hindu culture.
Alas, we
have been through seasons of intolerance whereby any film, book or artwork
which pokes fun or is not in sync with our leaders thinking, cause and outlook
is not only banned, vandalized and the offender arrested. Whereby, space for
liberal discussion is becoming narrower shown by repeated incidents of threats,
lynching and banning by self-appointed censors.
Questionably,
is India in an era of political intolerance? Have we lost the ability to accept
criticism? Bordering on a narcissist phobia? Is it mere coincidence or a sign
of an increasingly knee-jerk, reactionary country where one is forced to go
public about a frown, removal from job or punishment?
Is the
polity afraid of clash of ideas in public life? Is Government, Centre or State
crushing free expression, suppressing dissent? Are we so paranoid or intolerant
that any outpouring is viewed as a threat? Underscoring the narrow-minded
climate of political discourse we live in.
Obversely, does criticism of Government or leader
connotate putting a person behind bars? Is this a Government’s way of teaching
us a lesson in rashtra prem and desh bhakti? Do we want to produce
robots who only act at the command of what their leaders and chela thinkers, benefactors and wealth
creators’ desire?
Either
way, India is in the grip of self-styled chauvinism wherein critics,
intellectuals or hoi polloi are soft
targets with imprudent reactions taking over debates and calibrated
decisions. Life is lived in the slim
strip called official and every tweet, satire or defiance treated as a monster.
Big deal if this makes public discourse impoverished and toothless.
As
blinkered, dogma-ridden debates rage on it marks a dangerous political trend of
intolerance vis-à-vis freedom of
expression and personal choices. If this trend goes unchecked society will get
dangerously dogmatic and fragmented. Think. As India marches ahead,
enroute to being Atmanirbhar our
leaders need to realize in a mammoth one billion plus country there would be a
billion views and one is free not accepting views of others as it is a matter
of perception. A statement objectionable to a person might be normal to
another. cannot curtail people’s fundamental rights. At the same time we need to desist from acerbic and
speeches which spew hatred and narrow-mindedness.
Clearly, one cannot curtail people’s fundamental
rights. So do we pander to rabble rousers or muzzle their voices? No. Notably,
no licence should be given to anyone to spread hatred or the perilous
implications of their insidious out-pourings. They need to realise a nation is
primarily a fusion of minds and hearts and secondarily a geographical entity.
Besides, courts safeguard this right whereby citizens
enjoy fundamental right to have different opinions, criticize Government
actions and express disagreement with judicial pronouncements. The aim should be to raise the bar on public
discourse, not lower it any more than has been done.
Alongside,
our netas need to realize criticism
is a sign of a thriving and robust democracy. Take a lesson from leaders
world-wide who are more tolerant about what’s written or depicted about them.
Two classic examples of political freedom are former US President Trump who
continues to be mercilessly satirized globally and ex-Italian
millionaire-playboy-PM Berlusconi. In UK and France people take a lot of
liberties vis-à-vis their rulers.
Undoubtedly, when taking a final call Government and
Court should keep in mind that procedural safeguards almost never work in a
country where the prosecutorial proclivity to arrest overrides all else. An
example: Police used Section 66A of the IT Act long after it was scrapped.
Moreover, conviction rates languish in single digit underlining the scant
evidence that underpins such charges.
Additionally, the Apex Court’s thrust on liberty and
individual freedoms as guaranteed by Article 19. Certainly, the State must be
able to defend itself for what it considers derogatory and offensive but such
action should never come at the cost of Constitutional rights.
Remember,
democracy is not just a system of Government, it is a way in which evolved and
civilised societies organise themselves; within which people live and interact
with one another; based on the values of liberty, equality and fraternity. And
criticism is a sign of a thriving and robust democracy.
At some
point we need to realize that coercion has a thousand fathers, while liberty is
an orphan. As George Orwell said, if liberty means anything at all, it means
the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. Hence, India could do
without netas who distort politics
and in turn destroy democracy and laughter.
India
was conceived as a democratic rather than majoritarian country wherein all
citizens have certain basic rights. When it
comes to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a cardinal value that
is of paramount significance under our Constitutional scheme. Our democracy
will not sustain if we can’t guarantee freedom of speech and expression. What
gives? ----- INFA,
(Copyright
India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
4-Yr Degree, Silent on PSUs: CONG ON CAUTIOUS PATH By Shivaji Sarkar, 8 April 2024 |
|
|
Economic
Highlights
New
Delhi, 8 April 2024
4-Yr Degree, Silent on PSUs
CONG ON CAUTIOUS PATH
By Shivaji Sarkar
The Indian
National Congress has come out with a manifesto that looks pompous and well-intentioned
but less original and more reactive to the present policies.The party is
cautious even as it says it may replace the National Education Policy(NEP) but
is subdued on proposed novel path to deal with the sliding economy, eloquentlysilent
on PSUs and unnecessary 4-year-BA degree modelled on the highly expensive US
model.
It notes
overall dissatisfaction over NEP but limits it to “will revisit and amend the
New Education Policy after consulting with the state governments”. Does it mean
the4-year degree course to continue? Its scrapping could have highlighted deep concerns
to instil confidence in the youth, each of whom would spend at least Rs 3 lakh
a year extra and be delayed for job market. Overall, from unheard of four-year nursery
– to new four-year-degree – a child loses four years during education. Congress
could have highlighted the unnecessary fourth year at the degree level to cost
two crore aspirants’additional expenditure of Rs 6 lakh crore a year? If four
years loss over the period are calculated in financial and social terms, it’s
unfathomable.
The
manifesto avoids a word on the PSUs. The Nav Sankalp Economic Policy resets the
button with “3-Ws” - work, wealth and welfare for reviewing GST - hope of most
small traders, promote manufacturing and make jobs the cornerstone, rejecting
jobless growth. A new orientation since 1991. Its definition of work is the
same as in the present - self-employment and starting business.
It
highlights that Reserve Bank of India’s finds 60 percent of central projects
stalled causing a cost escalation of Rs 5 lakh crore. It could have said these
would be scrapped. On the labour laws too, the party is evasive on undoing the amendments
denying them the rights.
On
corruption, it says, “will probe demonetisation, Rafale deal, Pegasus spyware,
the Electoral Bonds scheme and bring to law those who made illegal gains
through these measures”. Rahul Gandhi at the launch said the electoral bonds
showed that political funding to the BJP was through “extortion and putting
pressure” on the corporates. A welcome move. It has also promised reversal of
Agnipath army recruitment. In most such Opposition promises, it was observed
that once in government, the issues are shelved and some may even say these
were “jumlas” as manifestos have turned out.Some probes have been mere
witch hunting. In December 2013, the GST was stalled terming it anti-people but
once in power, those who stalled hurriedly enacted it at the world’s highest
rates.
The 1971
Congress manifesto is remembered to the day for its classic “Garibi Hatao”
(remove poverty) slogan. The slogan “five Nyaya” (five justices) may be
a good idea but is not inspiring. It calls for five pillars of justice– Justice
for Youth, Justice for Women’, Justice for Farmers, Justice for Workers, and
Justice for Shareholders. What is so great about it if it has to counter mumkin
hai(it’s possible)!
The
convenor P Chidambaram has been criticising government performances in his
newspaper columns and even challenged the new statistics. It does not reflect
in his document.It even does not question the figures of 3-trillion economy,
which has a high repayment of Rs 10 lakh crore and reduces Rs 47 lakh crore
2024-25 budget to Rs 37 lakh crore. The 7 percent growth figures are being
questioned by the World Bank.
The
communication could have been sharper. It could have highlighted the weaker
consumer sentiments than five years back as RBI’s Consumer Confidence Survey
denotes. In 2024, fewer people report improvement in employment of income
situation.The middle class is promised stable income-tax. It does not promise
that it would be at the level of 22 percent corporate taxes.
To
combat unemployment, Congress has guaranteed a one-year apprenticeship with a
private or a public sector company to every diploma holder or college graduate
below the age of 25 years. The wages of workers under the Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act will also be increased to Rs 400 per
day – the minimum national wages it announces. It seems to have forgotten that
apprenticeship scheme was introduced by Indira Gandhi in 1970s. Repeated several times. Each time it was a
cropper as the private sector never liked it and PSUs were lukewarm.
Railways
are on the path of Air India disaster with dynamic fare aimed at boosting air
travel. All metros in the country except Kolkata are running in losses.
Manifesto could have harped on it and suggested pocket and eco-friendly solutions
like inexpensive elevated trams replacing money guzzlers.
Caste-based
census could help it politically to an extent but that cannot be a road map for
creating jobs. It has got into the trap of caste politics. The party is
forthright on highlighting the abysmal Manipur situation, a silver lining.
The
manifesto has spoken of high petrol prices,questioned “cess” raj but is silent
on atrociously high petrol road cess toll of Rs 32.9 per litre introduced promising
to abolish toll gates. The country needs freedom from extortionist toll
collections of over Rs 10 lakh crore through cess and toll gates causing high
inflation.
Similarly,
it is silent on scrapping illicit law for car/tractor junking and high
education fees. These cause enormous wealth loss to farmers and average
families. With a bit of empathy, it could have touched millions of hearts. It
is a whale of political opportunity to cater to the people.
It has
done well to promise that job applications would not have any fee. The call for
opening more Kendriya Vidyalayas, Navodaya Vidyalayas and Kasturba Gandhi Girls
schools are reassuring. The move to introduce free education up to class ten is
appropriate. Would it be so also in private public schools? It has a model in Uttar
Pradesh. In 1960s, the Congress government introduced the system of paying
teachers’ salaries even for private schools ushering in required changes in the
education scenario. That brings the fundamental difference.
It has
decided to review the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and remove the provisions
that restrict freedom of speech and expression that violate the right to
privacy. It ignores the more draconian Bharat Samhita or other amendments to
the Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code. The powers to misuse ED, CBI
and other bodies emanate from it.
Still
the promise to have a fearless society may raise hopes. The nation aspires that
with these new moves the political discourse would turn for the better.---INFA
(Copyright, India News &
Feature Alliance)
|
|
| | << Start < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| Results 19 - 27 of 5987 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|