Round The World

New Delhi, 9 February 2024

Domestic Election

IMPACT ON FOREIGN POLICY

By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri

(Secretary General, Assn for Democratic Socialism) 

In developing countries, elections at home do not usually have serious foreign policy issues. Only the big countries having international market and influence make foreign policy an election issue at home. In the age of globalisation as well as interdependence between countries, the trend may be changing. Let us examine this assumption. 

Interestingly, 64 countries in the world including seven most populous countries are going to elections in 2024. No wonder, this year is being called ‘world election year’. What would be the impact of these elections on their respective foreign policies and on world politics at large? Remember that a few countries that deeply matter to India have just had their elections and are going to have another round. 

Bhutan had its elections last year and the incumbent Prime Minister got re-elected and was visiting India at the time of writing, 7^th of February. Bangladesh had Parliament elections and Sheikh Hasina got re-elected. Her Foreign Minister is likely to come to Indian soon. Taiwan had the general elections and the previous government got re-elected. The Government of India congratulated the winners in Bhutan and Bangladesh. Since India does not recognise Taiwan, New Delhi had a muted response to their elections. The Foreign Ministry spokesman noted the developments in Taiwan while acknowledging the growing people-to-people relations and the cultural and business exchanges between the two countries. 

Maldives also had its presidential election and tension with India has begun since as a pro-China candidate became the President. President Muizzu, in line with his election promise, has asked India to withdraw its military presence from his country. Indians, if not the government, have reacted strongly to cheap jibes made at Prime Minister Narendra Modi by two of Maldivian ministers. The two ministers making such gratuitous remarks have been suspended. 

Also, countries where elections are going to be held this year matter to India in their foreign policies. To start with, Pakistan went to the polls on 8^th of February. Imran Khan has been put in jail and is barred from contesting. Nawaz Sharif is likely to win. New Delhi may hope for a thaw in India-Pakistan tensions and revival of bilateralism. Modi had visited Pakistan during Sharif’s tenure and the latter was in New Delhi at the former’s swearing-in ceremony of in 2014. 

Maldives, which had the presidential election, goes to polls on 17^th of March for Majlis, its Parliament. New Delhi would hope that Majlis elections will check the ruling coalition’s power by boosting the former PPM Party. Muizzu has been taking an anti-India stance, more so, after his visit to Beijing. He has negotiated with India the withdrawal of troops by 15 March just two days before the Majlis elections. 

Sri Lanka is going to have both presidential and parliamentary elections sometime this year. New Delhi would expect the ruling dispensation in Colombo to win the elections. In any case, India will have the cross-party support from Colombo as New Delhi has extended economic support to the Island country during its crisis. Only recently, the Opposition leader from Sri Lanka met the Foreign Minister and the National Security Advisor in New Delhi. 

Let us turn to P-5 countries, the big powers. Russia will have its elections from 15-17 March to re-elect the powerful President Vladimir Putin. In fact, Prime Minister Modi will be visiting Russia to attend the expanded summit of BRICS, which became a ten-member group last year from the original five. The whole world will be watching the bigger BRICS as it has the economic heft. 

In Europe, another powerful bloc, the European Union goes to elections between 6 and 9 June. Although EU elections are not much talked about here, the results would be important in terms of quite a few important issues – EU support to Ukraine war, its policy towards Israel-Hamas war, immigration policy, the trade negotiations including with India and so on. 

Now on the big one, elections are to be held this year in the United States. With some reservation, the US is the sole-super power today. Washington views India to be the counterpoint to China. To be sure, New Delhi is still not there, although it has the potential with right partnerships to become an alternative hub for manufacturing etc to China. There is going to be a rematch between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Some observers call it a contest in gerontocracy as both Donald Trump and Biden, in their age, are much past their prime. 

Britain, the closet ally of the US will also have elections later this year. The current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has to announce the time for the election. Some observers liken Sunak biding time with the man who was sentenced to death by the king. On his last wish, the man asked the king to give him a year till he makes the royal horse talk. The wish was granted. When asked on his queer wish of making the horse talk, the man said, within a year, anything could happen, the king may die, I may kick the bucket, or the horse may talk. That is how Sunak seems to buy his time. As per opinion polls, the Labour Party is sure to come to power. However, New Delhi wishes to complete the Free Trade Agreement with Britain before the elections, lest they should start the negotiations all over again. 

In the Global South, out of the countries which matter, Indonesia is going to presidential elections on 14 February. Joko Widodo who has reached his term limit is putting forward his son against Defence Minister Prabowo Subianto. If any of them does not reach the majority mark, there will be a run-off on 26 June. Mexico has a single term presidency so it will have a new government by June-end. South Africa, which is aligned with India’s position in BRICS and on some other issues is going to have a hotly contested election, so New Delhi will watch it carefully. 

Finally, back home, India is going to have its Parliament elections in April-May. There is lot of debate and some agitation on the autonomy of the institutions, misuse of enforcement agencies, use or misuse of EVMs etc. Notably, only four countries in the world use EVMs. The results of elections in India will determine her foreign policy mainly towards its neighbours. 

As said before, domestic elections are drawing in foreign policy issues. In the past, foreign policy used to be based on national consensus. But this is no more the case. Many democracies are perceived to be turning to autocracies. Hence, many observers are suggesting that world democracy is on the ballot this year. Therefore, not only domestic politics, but foreign policies and world politics are going to be impacted by the elections this year. ---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 8 February 2024

DEMOCRACY IS NOT A HARLOT

By Inder Jit

(Released on 18 September 1979) 

Much of our medieval and modern history is beginning to make sense at long last. The treachery of the Jai Chands and the Mir Jafars always baffled and troubled me as a student, inspired by the freedom struggle and brought up on Gandhiji's "Quit India" call. How could Jai Chand sink so low as to invite Muhammad Ghori to India just to settle with Prithvi Raj personal scores, howsoever hurtful and serious? Again, how could Mir Jafar shamelessly join hands with the East India Company for the sake of private gain, no matter how great, and thereby help the British in their calculated design to colonise India. These and other black seeds no longer confound. Everything now falls into a pattern against the backdrop of the recent political happenings. Major issues have seldom counted. Personal gains and petty feuds have invariably taken precedence over all else. A descendant of Mir Jafar remarked to me in New York two years ago: "Mir Jafar was not a traitor. He was only a defector."

The mid-term poll is hopefully expected to stem the spreading political rot, help revive some values and promote healthy polarisation. However, what we are witnessing so far is a continuation of what has happened over the past decade and more: an unbroken exercise in double talk and deception. All the parties are once again swearing by democracy, socialism and secularism. They are also busy drawing up their party manifestoes for the poll and, in advance, mouthing familiar platitudes and promises. Yet, the truth is that almost all our leaders are motivated solely by considerations of personal aggrandisement: who can get what, when, where and how. Most politicians, like the members of the notorious French Foreign Legion, are only too willing to join any new or old force which holds out promise of a bigger share in the prospective loot. Options are, therefore, being carefully kept open for any "good deal" any time. Nothing can be ruled out. Power and wealth are all that matter.

Nothing symbolises the tragedy of the current situation more than two experiences last week. In the first case, a prominent public man visiting New Delhi sought my "advice" about the poll prospects since we journalists are supposed to have special crystals. The reason? He had been offered a ticket for the Lok Sabha by all the three main parties -- the Janata, Congress (I) and the Congress-Janata(S) Alliance. "Which shall I take?" he asked and added: "Remember I must get into Parliament this time." Taken aback, I queried: "Is there really a choice?" Pat came the answer: "But all the three stand for democracy." The second occurred on Wednesday last at the Talkatora gardens, venue of the AICC(I) session. Surprised to find a strong critic of Mrs Gandhi at the meeting as a special invitee, I remarked: "I see you have made up your mind finally." "Yes, my friend", he said, "Mrs Gandhi has, more or less, agreed to give me a ticket. What is more, she has reaffirmed that she is all for democracy and your Press freedom too. Didn't you hear her this morning?"

Regretfully, little has been done by the feuding politicians or by the thinking people and the media to bring the parties down from their airy generalities to meaningful specifics in regard to their objectives and the means they propose to adopt to achieve the promised ends. Every party no doubt stands for democracy, socialism and secularism. But, as Nehru pointed out on more than one occasion, today's world faces a new crisis. "We speak the same words", he said, "but they mean different things to different people. In effect, we speak different languages." In India, the three words have come to mean all things to all men. Several pointed questions have still to be asked: What kind of a democracy do we want? Democracy of the Free World or of the Socialist World? What kind of Socialism? Gandhian, Soviet, Maoist, Fabian or Royist- or plain Post Office socialism, as John Galbraith once described our economic system under Nehru. Again, what kind of secularism? Pseudo or genuine?

Important at any time, these questions have become more pertinent now in view of various claims and counter claims. The Janata, the Congress (S) continue to denounce Mrs Gandhi and her Congress (I) as authoritarian. But Mrs Gandhi asserts otherwise. In an interview to Mary C. Carras last year as published in her book, Indira Gandhi: In the Crucible of Leadership, the former Prime Minister made the following remarkable claim: am committed to democracy. I do not think there is anybody who is less authoritarian than I am." In Bombay last week, she told newsmen that there had never been "lesser democracy in the country than during the last two and a half years of Janata rule. What is even more interesting and, according to many, "ominous" was her reference to democracy at the AICC (I) meeting last Thursday. Democracy in India, she said, might “take a new turn" after the elections. "Our people were fooled in 1977. Today their eyes have been opened."

Mrs Gandhi shrewdly preferred not to spell out the "new turn", she proposes to give to our democracy in case she is able to win the poll. (Remember, the Emergency was designed to put democracy back on the rails!) But this and certain other matters need to be clarified by Mrs Gandhi. What is her basic concept of democracy? Does she want India to continue as an open society? Or does she want it to switch over to a socialist democracy? What about the Press? Does she accept the view that the freedom of the Press is the cornerstone of our democracy, as appropriately stressed by Mr L.K. Advani, and that it should be enshrined in the Constitution in specific terms and made inviolable. Mrs Gandhi's remarks in Bombay on Press censorship and her subsequent clarification in New Delhi have not removed doubts about her basic outlook. This is indicated in her interview with Mary Carras whom she told: "To say that newspapers which belong to a very narrow group, to a clique you might say, that their voice being allowed is democratic, to me this makes no sense."

The Congress (I) would, therefore, do well to spell out in clear and unambiguous terms its attitude to the freedom of the Press through a formal resolution of the Working Committee or an authoritative statement. This should be done equally in regard to fundamental freedoms and the independence of the judiciary if Mrs Gandhi and her party are to carry conviction about their basic commitment to a healthy democracy and the rule of law. Fresh doubts about her attitude to the judiciary have been created both by her recent remarks on the Maruti report and the judgment by Justice Sinha in her historic election case. The latter happened when a newsman in Bombay at a "Meet the Press" session asked some inconvenient questions about her election case. Visibly angered, she sarcastically quipped "what an election case" and then reportedly added: "A petty judge sitting somewhere had debarred a Prime Minister for six years on flimsy grounds. It was a ridiculous judgment."

Likewise, three other issues need to be clarified by each party to enable our people to make a correct choice: the concept and content of socialism and secularism and of non-alignment. Early in the seventies, some younger Congressmen tried to get their party's High Command to set up a committee to define socialism. But Mrs Gandhi tactfully shot down the proposal, leaving her Government free to act pragmatically, a formulation which eventually enabled her to promote, so to say, the family sector, as disclosed by the Maruti report, in addition to the public and private sectors. True, every party vaguely stands for a mixed economy in which there is scope for both public and private sectors. But Mr Charan Singh, Mr Jagjivan Ram, Mr Chavan and Mr Bahuguna seem to differ in their respective concepts of socialism and planning and the role of the public sector. The people would like to know quite clearly the kind of socialism they are voting for and that, in the final analysis, they are not opting for a mixed-up economy.

Secularism got off to a good start under Nehru. But distortions crept in before long and one was even treated to the disgusting spectacle in which Mahatma Gandhi came to be labelled as a Hindu. Things have greatly deteriorated thereafter and our secularism has increasingly come to acquire an unfortunate tilt. One is secular if one ignores all facts and denounces, for instance the massacre of Muslims in Aligarh or Jamshedpur and in the process even incites communalism. But one becomes "rabidly communal" if he or she denounces the "butchery" of Hindus at Sambhal in UP. Communalism, whether of the majority or the minority, needs to be condemned by all parties and their views clearly stated. It has no place in a genuinely secular state. Similarly, we need to be positive about the basic concept of non-alignment, essentially a projection of India's sovereignty into the world abroad. Who stands for a tilt towards Moscow or Washington and who for genuine non-alignment?

Ultimately, we must be clear about the true nature of a healthy and purposeful democracy and what it offers: fundamental freedoms and the inalienable right to sack a corrupt and incompetent Government. We can do no better than recall Winston Churchill's famous words spelling out his concept of democracy. Said he: "Democracy, I say, is not based on violence or terrorism, but on reason, on fair play, on freedom, on respecting the rights of other people. Democracy is not a harlot to be picked up in the street by a man with a tommy gun. I trust the people, the mass of the people in almost any country, but I like to make sure that it is the people and not a gang of bandits from the mountains or from the countryside who think that by violence they can overturn constituted authority, in some cases ancient Parliaments, Governments and States." --- INFA.

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 7 February 2024

Interim Budget

WHO BENEFITS THE MOST?

By Dhurjati Mukherjee 

Budget analysis from various angles is found reflected in the media. Economists, financial experts, and others involved in the analysis rarely try to find out how much of the allocated sum reaches the lower segments of society, i.e., low-income groups, economically weaker sections and the poor. This aspect is necessary as around 60% of the population or more belong to the above category. 

Experts note that fiscal consolidation was attempted in the interim budget and there were no populist measures, such as reducing the tax slab or increasing the standard deduction so that the middle class pay less taxes. However, emphasis on infrastructure, specially railways with allocation of Rs 2.55 lakh crore needs to be appreciated. The three major economic railway corridors announced shall improve logistic efficiency, reduce costs, ensure safety and higher travel speed for passengers. Besides, the decision to roll out the first set of 10 Vande Bharat trains with sleeper facilities and converting 40,000 bogies to such standards shall enhance passenger comfort. 

The other positive aspects include the vision of ‘Viksit Bharat’ which emphasises a prosperous nation in harmony with nature and the steps outlined therein are welcome. Though the focus of assisting States in accelerating development of aspirational districts and blocks is well received, the target for each year and the funds to be disbursed have not been outlined.  

The interim budget allocates significant resources to bolster the green energy sector, with a focus on harnessing India’s vast offshore wind energy potential. One such notable initiative includes viability gap funding for development of 1 gigawatt (GW) of offshore wind energy, which is expected to play a crucial role in diversifying India’s renewable energy portfolio and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Besides, there’s an ambitious goal to set up coal gasification and liquefaction projects capable of processing 100 metric tonnes by 2030 to diminish India’s import dependency on natural gas, methanol, and ammonia, while simultaneously promoting cleaner sources. There are plans too to set up one crore rooftop solar power units for households. 

As regards the farm sector, the government’s resolve to increase output of oilseeds, milk aquaculture production to help reduce dependence on imports for its food security and boost exports is a long-awaited step. Experts have been emphasising diversification of agriculture beyond crops to livestock and fisheries to increase farm income. For the masses, support for 20 million rural homes is possibly the only area of satisfaction as over Rs 50,000 crore has been allocated to PMAY-G for 2024-25, which is almost double the Rs 28,174 crore spent in the current fiscal, as per revised estimates.  

Inequality remains a key problem in the Indian economy and as per government data, per capita national income increased from Rs 72,805 in 2014-15 to Rs 98,374 in 2022-23 –a 35% hike. However, as known this is unequally distributed. A few big capitalists make some big investments, but these are not enough to offset the decline in medium and small enterprises or generate the much-needed employment. The big economic concerns are unemployment and underemployment, poor viability of farming, high food prices relative to workers’ incomes and inadequate access to basic services. 

Reacting to the interim budget, Congress leader and former finance minister P. Chidambaram had said the fundamental flaw in NDA’s approach to the economy and governance is it is biased in favour of the rich.“It is a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich,” he said, pointing out further “the government is either ignorant or callous to the fact that the top 10% owns 60% of the nation’s wealth and earn 57% of the nation’s income and that income inequality has widened significantly in the last 10 years”. 

Regarding government’s claim that it was empowering women by increasing their participation in the work force, he said the Labour Force Participation Rate among urban women is 24% against 73.8% for men. Perhaps, the government increases workforce participation for women by including unpaid helpers in family enterprises who don’t get remuneration for their work. 

The other basic problem of the economy is the lack of momentum in the manufacturing sector, with weak private consumption and investment and a rising divide between strong high-end and subdued low-end purchases. Though there is much talk of fiscal consolidation, the basic economic problems remain unresolved. 

An important area that’s been the subject of much discussion is the health sector. The country has 166,000 Health and Wellness Centres. Beyond affordability and accessibility, the quality of healthcare is too poor and can in no way be compared with other emerging nations. As per the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the integration of quality into universal health coverage is yet to be adequately addressed. 

Apparently, there’s been a meager 1.7% rise in the budget for 2024-25 in the annual outlay for health programmes after slashing the current year’s health expenditure by Rs 8500 crore. This means a 4.3% decline in real terms, keeping in view inflation of 6%.As Chidambaram pointed out that the budget for health is 1.8% and for education 1.5% of total expenditure, “None of the boasts can be accomplished with such low expenditure.” 

The government’s claim of inclusive development has come under scrutiny as the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR) found that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes had been allocated a paltry amount in the budget. The total estimated expenditure is Rs 51.08 crore, whereas the total allocation for the welfare of SCs is just Rs 1.66 lakh crore and even less for the STs at Rs 1.21 lakh crore. 

Undoubtedly, more resources are needed for welfare schemes, and this is only possible if taxations are increased. Organisations like Oxfam have repeatedly stressed the need to levy a wealth tax on the millionaires and billionaires of the country. Besides, there is need to impose an inheritance tax of at least 25% as in most other countries, including the US, it’s around 40%. But these suggestions sadly have been ignored. 

It’s basic knowledge that generation of more revenue will lead to increase in development expenditure. Most experts have been insisting on the need to increase tax to GDP ratio, which would of course affect the corporate. This too is being ignored by the ruling dispensation perhaps as some experts feel that top corporates may be making donations to the party and/or for temples etc. The inequality spectrum requires sustained attention.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Political Diary

New Delhi,, 6 February 2024

Uttarakhand UCC

IS  INDIA  NEXT ?

By Poonam I Kaushish 

It’s been an in-n-out political doors week: one Chief Minister switches sides, another is arrested and a third anointed in his place topped by Opposition accusing BJP of ‘luring’ aka bribing MLAs to dump their Party. Amidst this, in salubrious hilly Uttarakhand history was made when it became the first State to implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), the last of BJP’s core agendas after it fulfilled repeal of Article 370 in J&K and construction of a ‘magnificent’ temple in Ayodhya, following recommendations from a Government-appointed committee. 

Primarily, UCC a long-debated legal reform aims at uniformity in personal laws, like marriage registration, child custody, divorce, adoption, property rights and inter-State property rights regardless of religious beliefs. It gives importance to safeguarding interests of women, children and differently-abled and covers equal rights for daughters living on ancestral properties and gender equality. The State also seeks a ban on polygamy, child marriage and registration of live-in relationships. 

It divests religion from social relations and personal laws related to marriage, inheritance, family, land etc, bypasses contentious issue of reform of existing personal laws based on religion --- Hindu Marriage Act (1955), Hindu Succession Act (1956) Hindu Code Bill, Shariat law and Muslim Personal Law Application Act (1937). It would ensure all Indians are treated equally, provide gender equality and help improve women’s condition. Tribals’ though have been kept out of its purview.

Pertinently, the need for a UCC arises due to existence of discriminatory practices and is considered crucial to achieving social reform, eliminating inequities, and upholding fundamental rights. The BJP is clear: It believes no country should have any religion-based law other than a single law for citizens. Moreover, UCC provides protection to vulnerable sections and religious minorities, while encouraging nationalistic fervour through unity.

Naturally, Opposition opposes this on the fallacious ground UCC would interfere in religious groups personal laws and right of religious freedom unless religious groups are prepared for change (sic). It’s a ‘minority vs majority’ issue and Hindutva Brigade’s policy for Muslims living in India. It would disintegrate the country and hurt its diverse culture, they warn. 

Many whoop for UCC underscoring it is a comprehensive common law governing personal matters: marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance and succession for citizens irrespective of religion, harmonising diverse cultural groups, removing inequalities and protecting women rights.

Moreover, as India's political realities have changed so much since 2014 and modern society is gradually becoming homogenous whereby traditional barriers of religion, community and caste are slowly dissipating thus supporting national integration. A thought echoed by Supreme Court in various judgments. 

Those against it argue it violates Constitutional freedom to practice religion of choice which allows communities to follow their respective personal laws. For example, Article 25 gives every religious group the right to manage its own affairs and Article 29 the right to conserve their distinct culture. Also, the Constituent Assembly’s Fundamental Rights sub-committee deliberately did not include UCC as a Fundamental Right.

As the cacophony for and against UCC grows louder the correct answer lies somewhere in between. However, what cannot be denied is UCC will benefit BJP electorally alongside the consecration of the Ram mandir as it will be used  as a ploy to corner the Opposition about being pro-Muslim. A majority of Hindus would view it as the Party implementing its agenda.

Towards that end Assam’s Chief Minister Biswas avers he might copy paste Uttarakhand’s Bill while Gujarat unleashed its UCC genie November 2022 by setting up a committee to study its implementation and intends rolling it out pre-poll, the third State after Himachal and Goa already has a UCC regardless of religion, gender, caste. It has a common family law whereby all Hindus, Muslims and Christians are bound with the same law related to marriage, divorce, succession. 

However, some are wary UCC will impose a Hinduised code for all communities as it could include provisions regarding personal issues like marriage that are in line with Hindu customs but will legally force other communities to follow the same.

Legal experts are divided on whether a State has the power to bring about UCC. Some assert as issues like marriage, divorce, inheritance and property rights come under the Concurrent List, 52 subjects on which laws can be made by both Centre and States, State Governments have the power to impose it.

Not a few disagree as giving States the power to bring about UCC could pose a number of practical issues. Think. What if Gujarat has UCC and two people who get married there move to Rajasthan? Which law will they follow?

Besides, being a Directive Principle of State policy it is not enforceable. Notably, Article 47 directs the State to prohibit consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injurious to health. But alcohol is sold in most States and different States have different legal ages for drinking alcohol.

Arguably, what is it about the Code that makes politicians other than Hindutva Brigade see red? Why should UCC be viewed as anti-minority? If Hindu personal law can be modernized and a traditional Christian custom struck down as unconstitutional, why should Muslim personal law be treated as sacred? Should the State discriminate by caste and religion? 

Alas, over the years deliberate distortions of religion to suit narrow personal-political agendas and vote-banks have vitiated the country, obfuscating a crucial fact: Ambedkar advocated “optional” UCC. He made two observations.  One, Muslim Personal Law was not immutable and uniform throughout India.

Regrettably, in today’s politico-social reality Ambedkar’s advice is ignored and dismissed as utopian hypothesis and Article 44 remains a dead letter. Undoubtedly, both Hindus and Muslims have lost sight of their respective religions essentials, instead largely misled by bigots and fundamentalists. Worse, even the educated are speaking language barely distinguishable from that of Hindu-Muslim fundamentalists. Their stock answer to every critique: Religion is in danger.

Complicating matters there are too many religious practices and beliefs governed by personal laws, and unless we as a society are ready to give up everything that we are used to, then there can be a UCC. Think. Marriage, divorce, inheritance are not concepts that can be regulated strictly by uniform laws, because they are all part of a personal lifestyle which is interwoven within religious identity.

Certainly the path to UCC is sensitive and difficult but it must be taken. A beginning has to be made if the Constitution is to have any meaning. Discrimination cannot be justified on the grounds of traditions and customs. To establish equality the law that regulates population of a country should also be one. A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing desperate loyalties to laws, which have conflicting ideologies. 

What next? Ultimately, no community should be allowed to veto or block progressive legislation. Time now, to reject different laws for different communities, implement Article 44 and reform India.  

One cannot progress riding on past’s wheels. India needs uniform laws and should figure what is satisfactory to all groups. Criminal and commercial laws are basic, so there is little purpose behind common laws to appear as something else. It just partitions Indians on the premise of religion that should not happen in the 21st century. It is beyond endurance of sensitive minds to allow injustice to be suffered when it is so palpable. What gives? ---- INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)