|
|
|
|
|
Rupee turns 60 plus
Setting the stage |
|
|
|
Unemployable graduates
Modi factor in Indian politics
Mesmerising maze
If a candidate has to reveal, why not parties
|
Rupee turns 60 plus
THE rupee touched a new low of Rs 60.72 against the dollar on Wednesday, pressured by month-end payments in dollars by Indian oil importing companies. The rupee has depreciated by more than 11 per cent since the beginning of May. The breach of the psychological barrier of Rs 60 for a dollar turned investors nervous and the next level expected is Rs 62, though a short bounce back is not ruled out since the rupee has depreciated sharply in recent days. For the corporate sector the worry is that a weak rupee pushes up inflation, leading the RBI to hold interest rates. High capital cost along with inordinate delays in project clearances have slowed down industrial expansion, which is another reason for foreign capital outflows. Although government representatives have tried to allay fears on account of a weak rupee, the RBI's reluctance to intervene is understandable. For one, it is not desirable since imports have dipped and exports need a boost. For another, the RBI action may be ineffective in stemming the rupee fall. Foreign investors are pulling out of Indian debt and shifting capital to US equities and bonds where yields are improving. The US economic recovery has gained ground, resulting in large capital withdrawals from the emerging economies, including India. The latest economic indicators about China and India, which were once seen as the drivers of global growth, are far from inspiring. Official data released on Thursday showed that India's current account deficit narrowed to 3.6 per cent of the GDP in the January-March quarter from 6.7 per cent in the October-December quarter. This lent some strength to the rupee. But the relief may be short-lived as capital shift may step up. In June alone foreign institutional investors withdrew $4.8 billion from Indian debt. If they start dumping Indian equities in a big way, the rupee would be in for more trouble.
|
|
Setting the stage
John Kerry’s
visit to India was important for a number of reasons, even if it did not produce banner headlines. The US Secretary of State has interacted with Indian leaders for a long time, in various capacities, but right now his visit came at a time when there has been a degree of cooling off between the two nations. During his three-day visit, Kerry held wide-ranging talks with many leaders. Indo-US ties have gone past an age of vicissitudes and are stable to such an extent that even the Snowdon disclosures that coincided with the visit did not disturb the dialogue. On the educational front, India and the US have announced initiatives and signed four MoUs, including the one between the All-India Council for Technical Education and the American Association of Community Colleges on Cooperation to work on establishing community colleges in India. Politically, even as the US and India have different perspectives on the long-term stability of Afghanistan and on Iran, both nations have learnt to live with the differences. India strongly disapproves of any truck with the Taliban, something that the US feels is expeditiously imperative. Even as the US has led the world in imposing economic sanctions against Iran, India has carried on its engagement with one of the most important oil and natural gas exporters in the world, albeit in a somewhat restricted manner. Economically, if the US is unhappy about what it terms as Indian ‘protectionism’ in some sectors and seeks for more markets to be open to US businesses, a recent irritant for India is the change in the requirements for the H1B visas, which directly affect Indian IT companies. On its side, the US is not happy with the lack of progress in India defining nuclear liabilities under which foreign companies could supply equipment for civilian plants. Trade between the two nations has grown five-fold since 2000, and it is likely to increase further. India and the US have ties that allow the two nations to pursue their own agendas even as they work together towards mutually beneficial goals. John Kerry’s visit has helped bring in more focus on this relationship.
|
|
|
Unemployable graduates
IN 2007, a report prepared by the Indian Labour Report (ILR) offered startling data on the wastage incurred in the name of education. It found 82.5 million of India’s 145 million youth as unemployable and needed further training to get basic jobs. With 5.3 million requiring training for six months, 21.9 million in serious need of training up to one year and a massive 55.4 million need of “structural repair”, would further incur an expenditure of Rs.490,000 crore. But of these, only 11 million were unemployed, which meant 58 per cent of the employed youth were under-employed. And all this was caused by a deficient education system. Reaffirming this, a report based on the Aspiring Minds Computer Adaptive Test (AMCAT) that claims to be the first ever national audit of employability of three-year bachelor's degree holders, states that 47 per cent of our graduates are unemployable. Inferences drawn from the data of over 60,000 pan-India graduates confirmed that the employability of graduates varies from 2.59 per cent in functional roles such as accounting to 15.88 per cent in sales-related roles which require language skills and 21.37 per cent for roles in the business process outsourcing sector. A majority of graduates were found not employable in any sector, given their insufficient English language and cognitive skills. The statistics on the high percentage of unemployables stems from the fact that after 60 years of following an education policy, we have not been able to make our education interesting or rewarding enough. These figures are indicative of a basic flaw in our education policy — while 90 per cent of jobs require vocational skills, our school and college education is obsessed with providing exam-oriented ‘bookish’ knowledge. Education has to be streamlined for skill development right from the pre-school level, and it also requires a massive skill reorientation programme for teachers.
|
|
|
The most beautiful thing in the world is, of course, the world itself. —Wallace Stevens
|
Modi factor in Indian politics
Narendra Modi has emerged as a deeply divisive figure in Indian politics. Leave alone the NDA, there is strong dissent within the BJP, itself. No doubt, it was L.K. Advani, the patriarch of the BJP who raised the red flag against Modi. Advani resented his being ignored by the BJP President, Rajnath Singh, when he made a suggestion not to make Modi as the supreme spokesman of the BJP election panel. The RSS chief himself had to intervene and soften Advani and ensure his continuance in the various party posts in which he figured until Modi's elevation. Nevertheless, Advani did not attend the BJP's national executive meeting, something which he had not done before during the last 32 years. This was divisive enough for Modi to be counted as a negative factor in BJP politics. In Bihar, Sharad Yadav, JD(U) President, as well as Nitish Kumar, Chief Minister, who headed a JD(U) — BJP coalition for 17 long years, came out strongly against Modi's appointment as the BJP’s poll campaign chief. The clarification that Modi was the poll campaign chief of the BJP and not the NDA did not convince Nitish Kumar or Sharad Yadav who went ahead and severed the link with the BJP. Nitish Kumar met the Governor of Bihar and informed him of the end of the coalition government with the BJP and asked for the assembly to be convened in a special session on June 19 for seeking a vote of confidence and proving his majority. The NDA headed by the BJP now consists of only two minor coalition partners — the Shiv Sena and the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD). The Modi factor disturbed the Congress party also to some extent. Though Jairam Ramesh had called Modi as “India’s first authentic fascist”, his description that Modi might prove a challenge to the Congress in 2014 did not go well with a Congress veteran who went to the extent of saying that if Ramesh felt so, he might as well resign and join Modi. There is no doubt that Modi is an unusual politician. He was the first politician to resort to digital use in his electioneering. It is now reported that Modi would use 3D holograms to address election rallies. He would also use technology to speak to 500 people in one call. All these modern methods were unknown to politicians of any party till now. Modi is said to be planning 100 days of “yatra” and might hold 75 big rallies throughout the country. He would not hesitate to exploit his OBC status and particularly in UP and Bihar his backward caste would be emphasised. It is mentioned that for clinching his claim for the top post he is trying to get elected to the Lok Sabha from the Hindi heartland, preferably from Lucknow, Varanasi and Allahabad. There was also a report that he would coordinate with other religious heads like Baba Ramdev. Ramdev himself may take a long “yatra” throughout the country in support of Modi. Notwithstanding all the hype that is being made about Narendra Modi’s approach being development-oriented and his well-known resort to digital technology during his electioneering campaign, Modi does not leave any opportunity to demonstrate his Hindutva credential. It has been announced now that Modi is likely to visit Ayodhya and high-powered team of Hindutva stalwarts headed by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad's Ashok Singhal would greet him and accompany him to the disputed site. Other Hindutva stalwarts in the team are Praveen Togadia, Baba Ramdev, Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas Trust chief Nitya Gopal Das and Gorakhpur BJP MP Yogi Adityanath. This report has since been denied. Nitish Kumar cannot be blamed when he protested loudly against the elevation of Modi and described the same as descent to doom. The BJP chief of Goa, Manohar Parikar, commented on June 18 that the 2002 post-Godhra riots in Gujarat were a clear-cut case of administrative failure and a bad example of governance. Criticism of Modi from yet another unexpected quarters: Sudheendra Kulkarni, an important figure during Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s days, wrote in an article that Modi was authoritarian and a self-centred leader who had shown that he cares two hoots for the party organisation and long-time party colleagues. Kulkarni went on to say that by becoming too powerful suddenly in the BJP's national scheme of things, a selfless leader like Advani, who toiled for many decades to build the party, was being cast aside as a useless relic. The manner in which the RSS chief pushed Modi to the very top and writing off Advani in the process would show that Modi is out and out a Hindutva candidate, whatever modern methods he might choose in his electioneering. No wonder, Nitish used strong words when he said that the "BJP was pushing them to doom". That Modi is not a moderate in any sense of the term is beyond doubt. A book on the life of Narendra Modi has been published. Its author is Kingshuk Nag. He speaks about the rise of Narendra Modi from an impoverished background, going up steadily after joining the RSS. Modi could be ruthless in dealing with his competitors. People like Shankersinh Vaghela and Keshubhai Patel where totally neutralised. While winding up the debate on the trust motion on June 19, the Bihar Chief Minister made a remarkable speech. He said that the NDA, which consisted of the JD(U) and the BJP, won in 2005 and 2009. The victory was due to Bihar's model which was inclusive, which has affirmative schemes for everybody — Hindus, Muslims, upper and lower castes, Adivasis and women. Nitish Kumar went on to say that the leader of the country should bring everyone together. He added that “our country is so diverse in terms of culture, language, food habits, etc”. We need to take everyone together. The RSS talks of Hindutva while his view was that the person who leads the country should be secular and should have a vision of inclusive growth. This country was goverened by a constitution whose basic values are egalitarianism, pluralism and inclusiveness, and together they formed what was called "Bharat ka darshan or the idea of India". Nitish went on to say that the question before India is: Will the constitutional vision triumph or will we surrender to the ideology of division and polarisation? The people of this country will not tolerate it. There was only one idea and that is the Idea of India and any other vision would lead to India's disintegration as a nation. No better description of Modi's politics is necessary. Modi's elevation as the most important leader of the BJP in the country and his possible nomination as the Prime Ministerial candidate would, no doubt, lead to negative forces asserting themselves in the affairs of the
country.
The writer is a former Governor of UP and West Bengal.
|
||
Mesmerising maze They are both as far removed from each other physically as they are temporally, almost existing in distinct eras. The ambient sounds and smells, the wares on display, the nature of sidewalks and a thousand other differences, yet one uncanny similarity binds them together — leisure walkers are a big “no”. In fact, I was ticked off by fellow pedestrians for moving with a deliberate and measured pace! Mother Earth here seems to exist vertically —“gaganchumbi” (kissing the sky) is how our “desi” cousin chose to describe the mesmerising maze of the glittering glass and shiny steel around us. As I stood there, the golden glow of endless streams of lights and illumination seemed a non-stop display of flaming fireworks dancing on the glass facades. Up came the crowds from a busy subway station, out came the crowds at the end of a theatre show performance, crowds down surged a wide alleyways for another bout of merry-making in the bars and restaurants in the evenings. The whiff of perfume from a lady who passed by lingered on until overtaken by the strong smell of brewing coffee from the next coffee shop. The vehicles zoomed in and out with their vroom-vroom even as the people spoke to each other only in “hushed respectable” tones so as not to disturb the others. The ever-pervading hum of vehicular and human chatter was “disturbed” by the cacophony of wailing sirens of ambulances, fire brigade vehicles and police vans, rushing past. But did I have the luxury to linger, stop and soak in the sights and sounds? Could I slow down to fill up my senses with the edifying smells of coffee on the streets? Could I look up and up and up until I get a crick in my neck and still not be able to see the top of the buildings? “No” seemed the answer from the rushing pedestrians milling around me, brushing past me with a curt “excuse me”, even throwing a disapproving backward glance in the busy Manhattan downtown in New York. A few days later, I wonder if I am on the same planet! Back home and footloose in town, I decided to venture out one early rain-washed morning. The ground spilled over with slush, the pavement “hid” beneath a wet sludge of rotting foliage. The shrill sound of bargains for the humble lemon and king-size watermelons, lying in the lap of Mother Earth, filled the air. The breeze caught and swirled around to mix the noxious smells of an open lavatory and the sweet fragrances of fresh mangoes and litchis. The traders, the hawkers, the wholesalers, the loaders, the tea vendors and the buyers splashed wet mud around as they walk from one place of business to the other. I kept looking down and down until I almost got a crick in my neck to ensure that I did not step into the next filthy puddle. Did I wish to stay on longer to withstand the smells? To search for the spark in the eyes of the poor women vendors unmindful of their young ones “biting the dust” even as they haggled with customers? Could I bend to remove the blotches of mud on my trousers when everybody seemed blissfully unaware of their dirt-splattered clothes? “No” is what I got again in the local vegetable market from a loader with a heavy stack perched on his head wanting to rush past to dump it quickly into a cart as he shouted, “Side pe baith jaa agar chalna nahin aata to”(step aside and give way if you don’t know how to
walk).
|
||
If a candidate has to reveal, why not parties Whether political parties are obligated to furnish information desired and demanded by citizens under the Right to Information Act, 2005, (RTI Act) is not a matter of debate. This is so for the simple reason that by virtue of Section 2(h)(d)(ii), a political party, being a non-governmental organisation, which is “substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate government,” falls squarely within the ambit of “public authority” to which the RTI Act is applied. Moreover, when all political parties without exception proclaim that their singular objective is to serve society through their democratically elected representatives or otherwise, there remains no reason for not providing the information sought by citizens under the Act, which has been concretely designed to empower them to usher in transparency and accountability in the functioning of our democratic polity.
Precipitation of the issue The Full Bench of three commissioners, including the Chief Information Commissioner, in their unanimous decision of June 3, 2013, held that in view of the provisions of Section 2(h) of the Act the six national political parties under reference — the Congress, BJP, NCP, CPI-M, CPI and the BSP — clearly fell within the ambit of “public authorities”, and, therefore, were answerable to citizens under the Act. This order has evoked a mixed response from political parties, with most of them criticising it. Is this application of the provision of Section 2(h)(d)(ii) of the RTI Act to political parties in any way far-fetched or otherwise unwarranted? Isn’t it true that all such parties are claiming exemptions in matters of income tax? Isn’t it also a verifiable fact that at the time of elections all such parties seek and enjoy free air time to propagate their ideas and ideologies on All India Radio and Doordarshan that are wholly set up and supported by the State? Don’t all such extended facilities and privileges amount to substantially contributing to indirect financing from the government in the name of serving society and our polity? Criticising the order of the CIC for extending the description of “public authority” to “political parties” is erroneous or misplaced. Political parties have said that putting them into the domain of the RTI Act represents an “adventurist approach” damaging democratic institutions; or amounts to “serious infringement on inner-party functioning”; or undermines “the role of political parties in a parliamentary democracy”; or “strains credibility” of the political system. All such criticism of the CIC’s order is really not of the construction of the ambit of “public authority” vis-ŕ-vis “political parties”. In this respect, it would indeed be instructive if the debate revolves around whether or not political parties should fall within the exemption clause, disabling the citizens to seek probing information from them.
Exemption from disclosure Under the realm of exemptions under the RTI Act, it specifically relates to a public authority’s three main concerns of ‘efficient operations’, ‘optimum use of limited resources’ and ‘preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information’. These have been concretely crystallised in various provisions of Section 8 read with Sections 9-11 of the Act. Section 8 deals with 10 categories of information contained in Clauses (a) to (j) that are exempt from disclosure. All these categories, however, need not be construed as absolute exemptions. A close reading of these would reveal that they essentially bear differential character, depending upon the objective sought to be achieved by each one of those exemption clauses. A public officer, for instance, is not obliged to give information if its disclosure prejudicially affects the sovereignty and integrity of India, security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with other foreign state or lead to incitement of an offence. Against such absolute exemptions, disclosure of information available to a person in his ‘fiduciary relationship’ is only a conditional exemption, which means that information could be disclosed by the competent authority if he is satisfied that disclosure is desirable in the larger public interest (as for instance, the disclosure of a patient’s infectious disease by a doctor to some nodal agency keeping a watch over such diseases). Whether a political party is entitled to seek exemption of non-disclosure on any of such counts is the issue that may be deliberated collectively by all parties. In fact, such a seminal suggestion has been made by one of the national political parties: “Given the serious implication of this order of the CIC for the political system and parliamentary democracy, the matter should be discussed by the government with all political parties so that suitable steps can be taken to preserve the integrity and the role of political parties in a democratic political system.”
Whatever may be the outcome of the ensuing debate, its complexion has to be constitutionally consistent. The right of a citizen to elicit information on election candidates of various political parties is no more just a simple statutory right granted to him by the courtesy of the State (read Parliament), but a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. Such a remaking transformation took place when the three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the landmark judgment in “Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)” read the right to vote of a citizen as his constitutional fundamental right. This was accomplished by treating the statutory right to vote as an integral part of the fundamental right to speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The right to vote involves the right of a citizen to know everything about the candidates that would enable him to make his right choice. The Supreme Court Bench invoking its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution specifically directed through the Election Commission of India that all candidates should furnish information on all such counts that would reveal their criminal past; pending cases in which he is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for two or more years; details of his assets (immovable, movable, bank balance, etc), including those of his spouse and dependents; particulars of his liabilities, if any, which he owed to any public financial institution or government; and his educational qualifications. Such an arrangement would stay put till Parliament moved in to consider and enact the judicial directive through appropriate law. As a sequel to the directive, the Central government immediately moved in and promulgated the requisite Ordinance, which was soon repealed and replaced by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 2002, that came into force with retrospective effect. The legislative response is contained in Section 33-A and Section 33-B of the amended Act of 1951. A bare comparison of the statutory provisions contained in Sections 33-A and 33-B of the Act of 1951 with those of the directives of the Supreme Court in “Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)” reveals that only some and not all of aspects of the right to information raised by the court are incorporated by legislature. The aspects relating to amassing of assets and incurring liabilities, for instance, are clearly excluded, for it is specifically stated in Section 33-B that no candidate shall be liable to disclose or furnish any such information which is not required to be disclosed or furnished under the Act despite the directions issued by the court to the contrary. This means that Section 33-B of the Act of 1951 “purported to neutralise the effect of directions issued by this Court” in Association for Democratic Reforms (2002). This led to a challenge to the constitutional validity of the two added sections in another three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the “People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) (2003)” case. In this case, the Supreme Court, inter alia, declared Section 33-B as unconstitutional, being in violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court Bench reiterated the directions given by it earlier in the “Association for Democratic Reforms” and “directed the Election Commission to issue revised instructions keeping in view the observations made in the judgment delivered by this Court.” In particular, the Supreme Court held that “the order issued by the Election Commission relating to the disclosure of assets and liabilities will continue to hold good and be operative.” This indeed is the constitutional status of the right of a citizen to receive all relevant information from the election candidates, and their concurrent obligation to reveal the same.
Problem of consistency In view of this back-up, is it constitutionally consistent to claim duality and reconcile the two conflicting propositions? On the one hand, the candidates set up by a political party are obliged to reveal information on all such counts that are crucial to the decision-making of a citizen in the exercise of his right to franchise. This is the constitutionally established proposition. How come, on the other hand, asking similar searching questions to the candidate’s political party would be destructive of its democratic functioning? More so when a ‘political party’ is simply ‘an association or body of individual citizens of India registered with the Election Commission under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951’. Jurisprudentially, a political party carries no separate or distinct ‘personality’ of its own, representing a rights and duties bearing unit, implying thereby that the rights and liabilities of a political party are no other but only those of its associating members.
A wider ambit In the enactment of the RTI Act, the underlying objective of Parliament was ‘to contain corruption’ in the body politic by making the system of governance transparent and accountable. Consequently, the right to information, unlike fundamental rights under the Constitution, is made not simply to benefit the individual as an individual but more to benefit society at large. This shift of focus from ‘individual’ to ‘society’, showing the primacy of ‘public interest’ over ‘individual interest’, is manifest in the provisions of Section 6(2) of the Act of 2005, whereby an applicant seeking information is not required to “give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.” Incorporation of any provision of sheltered status to a political party at any level — legislative, executive and/or judicial— continues to remain informed by the constitutionally proclaimed principle of “paramountcy of the democratic ideal”. That alone would strengthen the resolve of the aam admi in the system of democratic governance which is premised on: “Hum jane-ge, hum huk se jane-ge/ Kya hua, kya na hua, hum maloom karen-ge/ kaise hua, kahan hua, hum hak se jane-ge” (We shall know, and we shall know by right/ What happened, what didn’t, we shall find out/ How it happened, where it happened, we shall find out by right).
Why RTI Act applies to political parties *
Political parties receive several benefits and privileges at public cost. Therefore, they are ‘public authorities’. *
All election candidates have to reveal their criminal past; assets; liabilities; educational qualifications. *
A ‘political party’ is simply ‘an association or body of individual citizens of India registered with the Election Commission under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951’. *
The rights and liabilities of a political party are, therefore, no other than those of its associating members.
The writer is former founding Director (Academics), Chandigarh Judicial Academy, and Chairman, Department of Laws, Panjab University; and UGC Emeritus Fellow.
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
Two social activists sought information from certain national political parties about their sources of funding, names of donors, mode of spending money, choice of candidates for election, etc. However, they failed to get any response. This prompted them to approach the Central Information Commission (CIC) for seeking directions to the parties to furnish the information as they were obliged to do under the RTI Act.