EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

NOIDA/DELHI THE HINDU

TUESDAY, MAY 2, 20178EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

CMYK

A ND-ND

EDITORIAL

The Centre’s obvious reluctance to set up a stat-

utory anti-corruption institution stands com-

pletely exposed after the Supreme Court made it

clear that the existing Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

is workable on its own, without having to be amended

as proposed by the government. The court’s order that

the law, notiied in 2014, is good to go is an indictment of

the delay in establishing the Lokpal. It is a rejection of

the attempt to explain the delay on the ground that a

parliamentary standing committee’s report on pro-

posed amendments is still under consideration. The

government was on weak legal footing when it claimed

it was awaiting the passage of these amendments,

mainly of one that related to the leader of the largest

party in opposition in the Lok Sabha being considered

as the Leader of the Opposition for the purposes of

forming the Selection Committee to choose the Lokpal.

The selection panel consists of the Prime Minister, the

Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Leader of the Opposition, the

Chief Justice of India or his nominee, and an eminent

jurist chosen by them. The court has noted that the Act

provides for the selection committee to make appoint-

ments even when it is truncated due to a vacancy. It has

made it clear that the fact that some amendments have

been proposed and a parliamentary panel has submit-

ted a report would not constitute a legal bar on enfor-

cing the existing law.

The court has rightly refused to read down the provi-

sion on the Leader of the Opposition to mean “the

leader of the largest party in the opposition”. At the

same time, it is curious that an amendment to this efect

is pending since 2014, even after it was endorsed by the

parliamentary committee in its December 2015 report.

Provisions relating to the selection of the Chief Informa-

tion Commissioner and the Central Bureau of Investiga-

tion Director have been amended to treat the leader of

the largest opposition party as the Leader of the Oppos-

ition in the absence of anyone recognised as such. The

delay in passing this simple amendment is inexplicable.

Another provision relating to the declaration of assets

by public servants was amended last year. A simple way

of resolving the impasse was to recognise the Congress

party leader in the Lok Sabha as the Leader of the Op-

position. There is no law, except a direction from the

chair when G.V. Mavalankar was Speaker, that says re-

cognition is given only to a party that has won 10% of the

seats in the Lower House. A 1977 Act on the salary of the

Opposition Leader deines the position as the leader of

the largest party in the opposition and recognised as

such by the Speaker. An inescapable inference is that

the country does not have an anti-corruption ombuds-

man not due to any legal bar, but due to the absence of

political will.

Lokpal and the lawThe ruling that the existing legislation is

workable is an indictment of the government

Acontroversial proposal by Bibek Debroy, a mem-

ber of the government think tank NITI Aayog, to

tax agricultural income above a particular

threshold has led to a public exchange of views. Finance

Minister Arun Jaitley quickly dismissed any plans to tax

farm income, but more policymakers have begun to

voice their opinion, the latest being Chief Economic Ad-

viser Arvind Subramanian who made it clear that taxing

farm income is a State subject. The public image of

farming being a poor man’s venture and the sizeable

vote share that farmers enjoy have made the idea of

farm taxes a political taboo. The frequent distress faced

by poor or marginal farmers, which could be attributed

to structural issues other than taxation, hasn’t helped

matters either. But India has a presence of rich farmers

as well and there exists as a strong justiication for tax-

ing them in order to widen the country’s embarrass-

ingly narrow tax base. Mr. Debroy suggested that an ap-

propriate tax policy should draw a distinction between

rich and poor farmers, thereby addressing the wide-

spread political apprehension of bringing agriculture

under the tax net. It is no secret that India’s tax base,

standing at a minuscule 5.9% of the working popula-

tion, is already among the lowest in the world. This un-

necessarily burdens the more formal sectors of the eco-

nomy that are already overtaxed; at the same time, it

handicaps government spending on the social sector.

The case for treating agriculture on a par with other

sectors is thus clear. But policymakers must also show

equal care and urgency in addressing the structural is-

sues facing the sector. This includes, among many, re-

forms to the broken agricultural supply chain that still

leaves farmers at the mercy of middlemen cartels. Such

reforms are crucial if farming is to become a sustainable

enterprise in the long run. Else, a tax on high-income

farmers will result only in driving resources away from

agriculture into other sectors. It would make no difer-

ence to poorer farmers stuck in agriculture, merely be-

cause of the lack of opportunities. In this context, the

historical transition of labour and other resources from

agriculture into other sectors is particularly useful to

keep in mind. The said transition has been very slow in

India; in fact, according to Census igures, the size of the

farm workforce increased by 28.9 million between 2001

and 2011. This is due to a combination of factors, but

one in particular is worth noting: the diiculty agricul-

tural workers face in inding jobs in other more ad-

vanced sectors. A tax on lucrative high value farm ven-

tures, which afects their ability to absorb labourers

from low-value farming, could make life more diicult

for farmers unable to make the cut in industry or ser-

vices. Given this, policymakers ought to tread carefully

as they move forward on a long overdue iscal reform.

Equity in taxesRich farmers need to be treated on a par with

other taxpayers, but with a clear road map

Rhetoric and political sig-nalling is an accepted ele-ment of crisis management

provided the messages are clearlyunderstood by those for whomthese are intended. If not, it be-comes a source of misunderstand-ing and a recipe for unintendedmiscalculation and potential dis-aster. Nowhere is this more evidentthan in recent exchanges betweenthe U.S. and the DemocraticPeople’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)where events threaten to spin outof control.

Trump’s mixed signalsIn an interview to Reuters lastweek, U.S. President DonaldTrump, while describing it as his“biggest challenge”, cautioned:“There is a chance that we couldend up having a major major con-lict with North Korea. Absolutely.”Earlier in April, amid reports thatNorth Korea might be planning an-other nuclear test to coincide withthe 105th birth anniversary of long-time leader Kim Il Sung, Mr. Trumphad announced that “an armada,very powerful” was headed to-wards the Korean peninsula. Aftera week it emerged that the USS CarlVinson aircraft carrier was actuallyon its way to Western Australia, onaccount of a lack of clarity in com-munications. This now stands cor-rected. Meanwhile, a nuclear sub-marine, USS Michigan, hassurfaced in Korean waters.

In turn, the DPRK threatened a“super mighty pre-emptivestrike”. After undertaking a live ir-ing exercise of its east coast, it fol-lowed up with another test-iring ofa ballistic missile on April 29 whichizzled, causing loss of face.

During the campaign, Mr.Trump had said that he would bewilling to talk to North Koreanleader Kim Jong-un, making it clear

that Barack Obama’s policy focus-sing on tighter sanctions was a fail-ure. After assuming oice, he ad-opted a harder line, declaring thathe would do “whatever is neces-sary” to prevent North Korea fromdeveloping a nuclear-capable mis-sile that can reach the U.S.

In the Reuters interview, how-ever, he relected unusual empathywhen asked about Kim Jong-un:“He is 27 years old [in 2011 when hetook over]. His father dies, tookover a regime. So say what youwant but that is not easy, especiallyat that age.”

In an interview to NPR last week,U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tiller-son said that while the NorthKorean leader may be ruthless, “heis not crazy”. He held out pro-spects of engaging in direct talksbut was unwilling to engage in “ne-gotiations about negotiations”.The U.S. has not held bilateral talkswith North Korea since the BillClinton presidency. So clearly,there is no dearth of signalling butthe question is, what is the 33-year-old Kim Jong-un expected to makeof it?

Need for policy consistencyRegime acceptance and regimesurvival have been key prioritiesfor Pyongyang since the collapse ofthe Soviet Union. A positive movein 1992 was the withdrawal of tac-tical nuclear weapons from theKorean peninsula and a suspen-sion of Team Spirit, the joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises,leading to the Basic Agreement on

Reconciliation, Non-Aggression,and Exchanges and Cooperation.When joint exercises were re-sumed in 1993, North Korea an-nounced its decision to withdrawfrom the Nuclear Non-ProliferationTreaty (NPT). The ensuing crisisled to talks and a year later, anAgreed Framework was concludedunder which North Korea suspen-ded its decision to withdraw fromthe NPT, agreed to freeze its nuc-lear activities, and in return, theU.S. pledged to build two light wa-ter nuclear power reactors. Foodaid and humanitarian assistanceprovided by the Clinton adminis-tration from 1995 till 2000 wasclose to $750 million.

The Bush administration de-clared North Korea part of the ‘axisof evil’ in 2002, cancelled directtalks and annulled the 1994 agree-ment. North Korea responded bythrowing out International AtomicEnergy Agency inspectors andformally quit the NPT thereby pro-voking a fresh crisis. China andRussia initiated Six Party Talks in2004 which led to the 2005 jointstatement which expanded thescope to more than the nuclear is-sue. However, the talks collapsedwhen the U.S. imposed sanctions afew months later; North Korea re-sponded with its irst nuclear testin 2006.

Since then, North Korea hasmade steady progress in its nuclearand missile programmes. An un-derground nuclear facility hasbeen built at Mt. Musan. Nucleartests were conducted in 2013 and

twice last year, and it is estimatedthat North Korea has enough issilematerial for 10 to 15 nucleardevices. By 2019, North Korea willbe able to develop long-range mis-siles that can reach the U.S. main-land. Given Mr. Trump’s redline,Mr. Jong-un is convinced that nuc-lear capability is the ultimate se-curity guarantee to protect his re-gime against U.S. intervention.

U.S. policy has oscillatedbetween sanctions in response tonuclear and missile tests, dilutionof sanctions by China, talks aboutcloser defence ties with Japan andSouth Korea, citing of additionalthreats by North Korea and moretesting, thus repeating the cycle.U.S. expectations that sanctionswould lead to regime collapse weremisplaced because given China’sstakes, this will not happen.

Will China nudge?Recently China has registered apolicy shift relecting unhappinessabout Mr. Jong-un’s behaviour, par-ticularly the high-proile execu-tions of those considered to beclose to China. The most recentwas the assassination of Kim Jong-nam, Mr. Jong-un’s half brother, inFebruary, which prompted Chinato halting coal briquette importsfrom North Korea. Air Chinastopped direct lights to Pyongy-ang last month but these are nowbeing reinstated. North Korea hasaccused China of “dancing to thetune of the U.S.”. However, Chinacan neither permit a regime col-lapse which would create instabil-ity nor allow its communist ally tobe subsumed into a uniied Korea.

Mr. Trump is trying to persuadeChina to exert greater leverage bypraising its President, Xi Jinping, as“a good man” who is “trying hard”.After the latest missile test, Mr.Trump tweeted, “North Korea dis-respected the wishes of China & itshighly respected President when itlaunched, though unsuccessfully, amissile today. Bad!” Mr. Xi is un-likely to be persuaded. At the UNSecurity Council meeting on April28, Foreign Minister Wang Yi reaf-irmed support for a denuclearisedKorean peninsula and previous Se-

curity Council resolutions but didnot support additional punitivemeasures. Instead, he again sug-gested that the U.S. and SouthKorea could suspend their militaryexercises.

More than North Korean tests,China is worried about the possib-ility of an unpredictable Trump ini-tiating unilateral action whichcould create an escalatory spiral.Another concern is the U.S. de-cision to accelerate deployment ofthe THAAD (Terminal High Alti-tude Area Defence) system inSouth Korea though it is hopefulthat a moderate President getselected in the May 9 election inSouth Korea and reverses theTHAAD decision.

The way forwardMr. Xi’s objective is to persuade Mr.Trump that neither more sanctionsnor military strikes are viable op-tions; the only option is ‘dialogue’.Second, while denuclearisation ofthe Korean peninsula can be along-term objective, for the fore-seeable future, Mr. Jong-un is notgoing to give up North Korea’s nuc-lear and missile capabilities. Atmost, he can agree to a freeze on itsprogrammes — no further tests, noexports or transfers and no threats.In return, the U.S. will need toprovide assurances relating to re-gime acceptance and a gradualnormalisation of relations. A mod-erate leader in Seoul will help theprocess of a sustained dialoguewhich also needs coordinationwith Japan.

Mr. Jong-un’s stakes are existen-tial and, having seen Western inter-ventions in Iraq and Libya and Rus-sian intervention in Ukraine, he isdetermined to retain his nuclearcapabilities till the end of what willbe a long and delicate negotiatingprocess, a process which could alltoo easily be derailed by confusingrhetoric and mixed signalling thathas escalated tensions.

Rakesh Sood is a former diplomat andcurrently Distinguished Fellow at theObserver Research Foundation. E-mail:rakeshsood2001@yahoo.com

Being pragmatic with PyongyangThe U.S. must realise that neither more sanctions nor military strikes are viable options to rein in North Korea

rakesh sood

DE

EP

AK

HA

RIC

HA

ND

AN

Acollection of addresses by

Justice K.K. Mathew alongwith excerpts from his judi-

cial opinions, published in 1978 un-der the title Democracy, Equalityand Freedom, became the irst workof its kind in Indian legal literature.Regrettably, it was also the last! Thehope expressed by its editor, Prof.Upendra Baxi, that it would be theprecursor of similar literary ven-tures in the future remainedunfulilled.

Making a markIn a practical sense, the book,Democracy, Equality and Freedom,published by the Eastern BookCompany — with a foreword byJustice Y.V. Chandrachud, ChiefJustice of India — is why Justice K.K.Mathew is still remembered, 40years after he stopped sitting in In-dia’s Supreme Court. But for the il-luminating and exhaustive 86-pageintroduction expounding the judi-

cial creativity and craftsmanship ofthe judge, K.K. Mathew would havebeen just one judge out of a roll-callof 186 judges who had sat in India’sSupreme Court. Prof. Baxi has beenmoved to say that Justice Mathew’sminority opinion in KesavanandaBharati (one out of several in aBench decision of 13 judges) “en-sures him the fame of being the Car-dozo of India”!

The reason for Prof. Baxi’s spon-taneous remark is Justice Mathew’smasterly use of contemporary juris-prudential thinking when attempt-ing to resolve the “fundamentalpuzzle” of India’s Constitution. Hisopinion in Kesavananda Bharati is amini-treatise on the use of jurispru-dence in judicial lawmaking. JusticeMathew approached the questionof amendment of the Constitutionas a constitutionalist, expounding awritten document of governance.He refused to accept that themakers of the Constitution ever in-tended that Fundamental Rightsshould be subservient to DirectivePrinciples of State Policy; rather (hesaid) they visualised a societywhere rights in Part IV and aspira-tions in Part IV would co-exist inharmony — “A succeeding genera-tion might view the relative import-ance of the Fundamental Rights and

Directive Principles in a diferentlight or from a diferent perspective.The value judgment of the succeed-ing generations as regards the relat-ive weight and importance of theserights and aspirations might be en-tirely diferent from that of themakers of the Constitution. And it isno answer to say that the relativepriority value of the Directive Prin-ciple over Fundamental Rights wasnot apprehended, or even if appre-hended was not given efect towhen the Constitution was framed,or to insist that what the DirectivePrinciples meant to the vision ofthat day it must mean to the visionof our time.”

Justice Mathew concluded thatthe only limitation to the amendingpower in the Constitution was thatthe Constitution could not be re-

pealed or abrogated in the exerciseof the power of amendmentwithout substituting a mechanismby which the state was constitutedand organised — “that limitationlows from the language of the Art-icle (Article 368) itself. I don’t thinkthere were or are any implied inher-ent limitations upon the power ofParliament under the Article.”

Another ine momentBut whatever be the contribution ofJustice Mathew to the great Funda-mental Rights case, the more im-portant — the more seminal — de-cision of his was in the immediatelysucceeding case (Indira Gandhi v.Raj Narain: 1975 Suppl. SCC1); hisopinion in this case illustrated whata strict self-disciplinarian the judgewas. Like other dissentients inKesavananda Bharati (Ray, Beg, andChandrachud ), Justice Mathew wasable to overcome the initial intellec-tual diiculty of reconciling hisreasoning in that case with the im-pelling need to hold that Article329A (challenged in Indira Gandhi v.Raj Narain) was constitutionally im-permissible. Unlike Chief JusticeRay, he did not say (Indira Gandhi v.Raj Narain) that Kesavananda Bhar-ati did not decide that there wereany implied limitations (arising out

of the doctrine of basic structure) tothe amending power of Parliament.In fact he straightaway conceded (asdid Justice Chandrachud) that therewas a seven-judge majority (in aBench of 13 judges) for the proposi-tion that “the power conferred un-der Article 368..... was not abso-lute.” Having done so, in conformitywith the basic norm of judicial dis-cipline, he then proceeded toidentify democracy as an aspect ofthe basic structure doctrine.

Article 329A as enacted had re-moved past, present and future op-erations of the Representation ofthe People Act, 1951, to election dis-putes afecting the Prime Ministerand Speaker, and despite the ab-sence of any applicable law it had(in efect) adjudicated the electiondispute between Raj Narain and In-dira Gandhi. In so doing, theamending body neither “ascer-tained the facts of the case” nor “ap-plied any norms for determiningthe validity of the election”, andhence this was (according to JusticeMathew) plainly an exercise of “des-potic power” damaging the demo-cratic structure of the Constitution.

Fali S. Nariman is an eminent lawyer,constitutional jurist and a formernominated Member of the Rajya Sabha

Guided by the ConstitutionOn his 25th death anniversary, revisiting some of Justice K.K. Mathew’s opinions

fali s. nariman

GE

TT

Y IM

AG

ES/I

ST

OC

KP

HO

TO

Matching resultsIt is a pity that almost allpolitical parties havecontrasting opinions on thereliability of electronicvoting machines —immediately suspectingthem when they stumble inelections and showeringthem with praise when theywin.Having given room to the“apprehensions” of anumber of political parties,the Election Commission ofIndia has now causedunnecessary confusion in itsoverreaction (“EC maychange recounting rules”,May 1). Whether one agreesor not, automation ortechnology does helpimprove eiciency andovercome large-scaleinstances of fraud. Wehaven’t abandoned the useof motor vehicles despitethe risks of road accidents.We try to observe safetymeasures instead.Kshirasagara Balaji Rao,

Hyderabad

A fresh mandate?Having managed to cobble amajority on its own in theLok Sabha and with a buferto fall back upon — in theform of seats secured by itsallies — the BJP has noreason to go in for a snapmidterm poll (“Venkaiahrules out mid-termelections”, May 1). The Modigovernment has got into itsstride and been able to wardof the Opposition despitedrastic measures such asdemonetisation. It has beenable to raise its stockconsiderably with athumping win in UttarPradesh and has mademincemeat of both the AamAadmi Party and theCongress in the Delhimunicipal polls. TheOpposition parties are indisarray with the Modi waveshowing no signs of ebbing.The prevailing situationhardly warrants a freshmandate before time.C.V. Aravind,

Bengaluru

Simultaneous elections The idea of havingsimultaneous Lok Sabhaand State elections isundemocratic and a denialof our opportunity to makea midterm rating ofgovernments. Calls for andtalk about favouring such achange of system now stemfrom a ploy aimed atreaping huge politicaladvantages across thecountry over any singleemotive and sensitive issuethat can momentarilyinluence the electorate.And India is a country thathas such emotive issuesaplenty. The present systemof separate time periods forState and general elections,though cumbersome, hasensured that the people usethe State elections as areferendum to judge theperformance of agovernment. The backers ofsimultaneous electionsseem to want to avoid that.Besides, the hugeexpenditure in holding

simultaneous elections, thedeployment of securitypersonnel deployment toowill be under immensepressure. The country willbe left without valid andresponsible administrationboth at the Central and Statelevel because all of themwill be under the ModelCode of Conduct. It isimperative that people seethrough such politicalgames and prevent theusurping of our democraticrights to choose and judgethose we elect. K.C. Menon,

Cherayiyil, Kochi

Trump on Paris pact U.S. President DonaldTrump’s statement onChina, Russia and India“having contributednothing under ParisAgreement” is like the potcalling the kettle black. Itdoes not behove a countrysuch as the United States tosay such things as it is one ofthe largest carbon emitters

in the world and willcontinue to be so. It is forthe U.S. to bear the cost ofcorrecting the course ofclimate change as it is aworld leader. It needs tolead by example.Dinesh Kumar,

Beri, Jhajjar, Haryana

BBC ThamizhosaiIt is saddening to read aboutthe closure of theThamizhosai BBC TamilRadio service (Tamil Nadu,“After 76 years, BBC Tamilradio to go of air”, May 1).During the India-Pakistanwars of 1965 and 1971, BBCTamil was neutral andextensive in its coverageeven though BBC was biased

against India. During the1967 general election, whenthe Indian NationalCongress’s popularitydeclined considerably, BBCwas again objective. Irecollect programmes suchas “Paattondru Ketten”.Whenever an importantevent took place in India orTamil Nadu, BBC Tamil wasamong the irst to contactVIPs and air their opinions.The station also played acrucial role in presentingthe ground reality in SriLanka by interviewing SriLankan Tamil politicians. Sukumar Talpady,

Kottara, Mangaluru

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Letters emailed to letters@thehindu.co.in must carry the full postal address and the full name or the name with initials.

more letters online:

www.hindu.com/opinion/letters/

corrections & clarifications:

The scoreboard accompanying “Dominant Kings steamrollerDaredevils” (Sport, May 1, 2017) erroneously gave the fall of Mo-hammed Shami’s wicket as 9 for 69. It should have been 9 for 67.

It is the policy of The Hindu to correct signiicant errors as soon as possible. Please specify

the edition (place of publication), date and page. The Readers’ Editor’s office can be

contacted by Telephone: +91-44-28418297/28576300 (11 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday to

Friday); Fax: +91-44-28552963; E-mail:readerseditor@thehindu.co.in; Mail: Readers’

Editor, The Hindu, Kasturi Buildings, 859 & 860 Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002, India.

All communication must carry the full postal address and telephone number. No personal

visits. The Terms of Reference for the Readers’ Editor are on www.thehindu.com

https://telegram.me/TheHindu_Zone https://telegram.me/PDF4EXAMS

CMYK

A ND-ND

OPEDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

THE HINDU NOIDA/DELHI

TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2017 9EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

DATA POINT

Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-tung made a surprisepublic appearance at the May Day celebrations in Peking amidfrantically cheering crowds who had not seen him for fivemonths. The reception he was given as he was driven standingin a jeep through Peking’s parks at times bordered on hysteria.Defence Minister Lin Piao, his chosen first deputy, sat besideMao in the jeep. Wearing a blue highnecked tunic and cap,Mao, his face composed and expressionless, only occasionallytook his right hand from a supporting rail in the jeep to wavebriefly to the crowds. Mao’s last public appearance was at aRed Guard rally last November and to-day was the first time hehad taken part in May Day celebrations for eight years.

FIFTY YEARS AGO MAY 2, 1967

Mao makes public appearance

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

FROM ARCHIVES

Details have been received here of a successful operation re-cently carried out by the Central Provinces Police against adangerous gang of dacoits. It appears that for the last twoyears this gang armed with guns and other weapons had beenterrorising the countryside in the north of Damoh and Saugordistricts of the Central Provinces and the adjoining NativeStates. On one occasion a villager was shot and an informerwho was caught had his nose cut off, while the gang openlyboasted that they would shoot at the sight of those who madeany attempts to arrest them. Eventually, however, the mainbody of the dacoits was located in the middle of thick jungle.

A HUNDRED YEARS AGO MAY 2, 1917

A dacoity in C.P.

It is well known that au-thoritarian governmentsare less tolerant of publicprotests than democraticones. But that does not ex-plain why some democra-cies also take to repressingprotests through violentmeans, while some don’t.

S. Erdem Aytaç, LuisSchiumerini, and SusanStokes in their paper,“Protests and Repressionin New Democracies,” inthe journal, Perspectiveson Politics (March 2017),seek to identify the pos-sible motivating factors fordemocratic governmentswhen dealing with popu-lar protests, especiallywith a backlash followingcrackdown on initialprotests.

Their paper looks at the“extrication” strategies ofthree democratically elec-ted governments to hypo-thesise that “electoral cal-culations” are a pivotalbasis for reactions to abacklash. The authors use

the in-depth case studymethod to contrast thestrategies adopted bythree governments — Re-cep Tayyip Erdogan’s gov-ernment in Turkey; DilmaRousseff ’s in Brazil; andViktor Yanukovych’s inUkraine — while dealingwith protests in 2013.

The backlash againstthese governments fol-lowed protests in Istanbul,Brazil and central Kiev re-spectively. In all threecases, the initial suppres-sion by governments ledto further agitations. Whatwas different was theirhandling.

While Mr. Erdogan’sgovernment used full-scale repression, theBrazilian and Ukrainiangovernments reacted withrelatively less-repressiveactions, even seeking tonegotiate.

The authors argue thatthe strategies were motiv-ated by concerns regard-ing electoral security ofthe parties in power. In

Turkey, the ruling Justiceand Development Party(AKP) “rested securely ona base of conservative anddevout constituents” andthere were barely any rul-ing party supportersamong those who pro-tested as part of the back-lash.

The support base of theruling Workers’ Party (PT)in Brazil was less partisan,leading to a dampening ofsupport following the ini-tial wave of repression. InUkraine, while there was adefinite cleavage alongpro-Russian and pro-West-ern lines, the party systemwas “inchoate”. The au-thors say this is why Tur-key’s response was clearlydifferent from Brazil’s andUkraine’s even though theinstitutional structures aresimilar in Turkey andUkraine.

The findings of this pa-per are useful to explainhow even the governmentin India reacts or could re-act to similar situations.

Electoral risks govern protest response

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

ABSTRACT

The elected governments in Turkey, Brazil and Ukrainedifered in the way they handled protests in 2013

Srinivasan Ramani

Mustafa Kemal Ata-turk, Jawaharlal Nehruand ArchbishopMakarios, founders ofmodern Turkey, Indiaand Cyprus respect-ively, are being re-eval-uated by the nationsthey founded. That allthree names evoke

complex emotions is expected; the real issue, however, is thatcritics are not quite conident of taking on these three.

There are many similarities in the way the three are beingviewed now. Critics of Nehru blame him for a number of prob-lems that torment India at present — issues as diverse as eco-nomy and India-China ties. Ataturk’s critics accuse modern-day Kemalists of degrading his ideology. Makarios is describedeither as an evil man or as a saint by diferent segments ofGreek, Cypriot and Turkish politics.

Mixed legaciesIn India, Nehruvian politics is increasingly viewed as lackingappeal for the aspiring masses. In Turkey, Kemalism is viewedas a highly Westernised anti-religious movement, Makarioshas faced criticism for not being fully pro-West, and for being avotary of non-alignment and solidarity among Third Worldcountries. The similarities do not end there. Despite the criti-cism of these igures, there is also an intense race to cooptthem into the dominant discourse of the day. Unable to dealwith Nehru’s achievements, his critics often resort to nuancesand instead of blaming him they are trying to build thememory of Nehru’s opponents like Syama Prasad Mookerjee.Similarly, Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan iscareful not to blame Ataturk and instead blames his followersfor reducing secularism to a fetish. Cyprus is similarly caughtbetween the ideology and memories of Makarios. Makarioschampioned non-alignment with Nehru and Egypt’s GamalAbdel Nasser, but in 2004, Cyprus dumped the Non-AlignedMovement (NAM) and joined the European Union (EU).

But critics don’t have full ammunition to demolish thesethree yet. Nehru’s politics and policies are criticised but criticsdo not have a complete set of alternatives. In Turkey, though itwas Ataturk who had banned the headscarf, present-dayrulers still enforce it in varying forms, citing freedom ofchoice. Cyprus wishes to model itself as the door to theEuropean market but still clings on to the idea of Third Worldsolidarity.

All three are also blamed for leaving behind conlicts. Nehruis blamed for the Kashmir dispute. Ataturk’s Turkish ethno-cracy created the festering Kurdish question. Makarios failedto resolve the issue of northern Cyprus with Turkey. In 1960,Nehru had tried to resolve the issue of Cyprus by bringing Tur-key into non-alignment. But the move was scuttled by a milit-ary coup in Ankara. However, all three stand tall on the scale ofsecularism. Given the cautious criticism and lack of an altern-ative agenda, it is obvious that critics are not yet fully conidentof taking on these three giants of world history who shaped the20th century.

Giants under scrutiny

Critics of Nehru, Ataturk and Makariosare yet to ofer an alternative agenda

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

SINGLE FILE

TH

E H

IND

U

KALLOL BHATTACHERJEE

Democracy has its paradoxes andironies, built as a system of differ-ences. Its institutions are supposedto allow for dissent and for diversity.However, electoral democracy can,at times, set up the basis for tyran-nical rule. A majoritarian democracycan become a megalomania of num-bers. The Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP) today is a party that believes ina majoritarian democracy in searchof absolute control. It is not a ques-tion of passing a few laws, it is a planfor a deeper cultural control. We cansense it while having a look at theelectoral map, the saffronisation ofIndia coming across as a visual epi-demic. As the electoral dots multiply,one colour dominates the electoraluniverse. This saffronisation is liter-ally a project for total culturalcontrol.

A party in search of such totalitiesdoes not look kindly at alternativesor at competing realities. The earlierpicture we had of democracy, in theCongress era, was a more affableone. As we moved from the nationalto the regional or local levels, thecontrol of national parties wouldweaken and dissent built aroundlocal issues would create a smatter-ing of oppositional entities. Suchparties, with their tiny pockets ofrepresentation, were seen as addingto the pluralism of democracy. Theywere seen as necessary at the locallevel because they focussed on spe-cific issues. They usually alignedthemselves with larger forces at thenational level while amplifying thevoices of ethnicity, locality and lan-guage. Democracy did not see themas parochial creations but as a part ofthe politics of scale.

Towards more intoleranceAs we moved from the macro to themicro, diversity was supposed tomultiply. Such local diversity wasseen as a healthy sign, a way of ac-commodating variation and pluralityat a local level. Two examples of thiswould testify to this. The DravidaMunnetra Kazhagam (DMK), whichwas a local party, could be almost se-cessionist in Parliament in terms oflanguage and still be listened to withtolerance. Laldenga, once seen as an

insurgent, was equally at home asChief Minister of Mizoram in the1980s. Such was the tolerance the In-dian polity displayed.

A totalising party such as the BJPhas no such affable theory of di-versity. In fact, it sees difference as asign of absence, of a failure to infilt-rate an area. Difference is immedi-ately identified as disturbance, sedi-tion, dissent and a challenge to theparty’s plan for an absolute majority.Opposition in any form is threaten-ing. When BJP president Amit Shahlooks at a map of India and sees dif-ferently coloured dots, I think hesees red, literally, wondering whythese regions are not saffron.

There is a second dynamic herethat we must understand. Smallparties often tend to have large egos,and larger aspirations. The emer-gence of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)was a perfect example. After winninga resounding victory in Delhi, it visu-alised new and victorious constituen-cies in States like Goa and Punjab,apart from imagining itself as an al-ternative to the BJP across the ‘HindiBelt’. Smallness always allows forhubris and the AAP, on the basis ofits Delhi victories, was alreadybranding itself as a national party.

For a while, the AAP did warm theimagination of middle-class India. Itoffered not only a more ‘grass-roots-oriented’ theory of politics but also adifferent style, emphasising a range

of experiments in governance. Its at-tempts to reform school admissionsand its efforts to raise the question ofenvironmental pollution met with analmost euphoric response. It sud-denly appeared like a model for a fu-ture India. In its own tiny, Lilliputianway, the AAP had become a threatfor the BJP; the possibility of an epicDavid vs. Goliath battle was real.

Rise and fall of AAPThe BJP has had a second plan fordominance, beyond countering theeffervescence of parties like the AAP.It sees any resurgence of civil societyas a threat. In fact, one of its first tac-tics was to suppress the variety ofnon-governmental organisations(NGOs) blossoming across India. Ithas also systematically attacked uni-versity space in the country, all partof its efforts to align the Constitutionwith the world view of the party.

Arvind Kejriwal, in his initialyears, combined the imagination of acivil society leader and the allure of asmall party’s head. The AAP’s risemight have been a local event but italways managed to make nationalnews. Given the lassitude of the Con-gress, the AAP was like a new guer-rilla party which could easily out-point a behemoth like the BJP. Thevery idea of such a David vs. Goliathbattle was manna for the media. TheBJP saw the Delhi municipal electionas a continuation, an add-on to the

Uttar Pradesh election. A defeatwould have reopened the Pandora’sbox of scepticism. One could see thatthe media immediately took its cuesfrom the political signals of the BJP.Municipal elections elsewhere get afootnote or a terse notice. In Delhi,the footnote had become amplifiedto an epic quality. The municipallandscape, for a week, commandednational attention.

For the BJP, and particularly forAmit Shah, the miracle of U.P.needed repetition. In many people’sminds, municipal Delhi was a hinter-land of U.P., an outhouse of migrantsfrom that State. As Yogi Adityanathentered the phase of governmental-ity, Mr. Shah had to invent a ‘juniorAdityanath’, to convince politicalpundits of his political acumen. Hedid just that by appointing Bhojpuristar Manoj Tiwari to head the Delhicampaign. Mr. Shah had to producean Adityanath for Delhi’s wards,which are chock-full of migrantsfrom the Purvanchal region of U.P.

Oddly, Mr. Tiwari’s first foray intoelectoral politics had been as a Sama-jwadi Party candidate against Mr.Adityanath in Gorakhpur, in 2009. InMr. Tiwari, Mr. Shah found a man tooutmanoeuvre Mr. Kejriwal. Heoffered a more cheerful theory ofurbanism, a more optimistic scen-ario of citizenship, a smart electionfor the smart city boroughs of Delhi.

A municipal election, despite itsminiaturised form, became repres-entative of national possibilities. TheU.P. State elections and the Delhi mu-nicipal elections became in thatsense a hyphenated battle. Mr. Tiwarihad to reproduce the devastatingpower of Mr. Adityanath’s victory atthe local level. He did.

Politicians often sense the futurein little events. They read the tealeaves of localities to predict newpossibilities. Mr. Shah is a broodingfuturist who sensed the strategicvalue of Delhi’s municipal elections.By rolling over a discouraged Mr.Kejriwal, he realised that municipalelections could be read as a majornational victory. He did just that,consolidating his role as the electoralNapoleon of the BJP onslaught. TheDelhi civic elections have clinchedhis reputation as a Mr. Juggernaut.Even sceptics like this writer have toacknowledge the tactical power ofthe victory.

Shiv Visvanathan is professor, Jindal GlobalLaw School and director, Centre for the Studyof Knowledge Systems, O.P. Jindal GlobalUniversity

How the U.P. State and Delhi municipal elections became a hyphenated battle for the BJP

Local trump card: As Yogi Adityanath entered the phase of governmentality,Amit Shah had to invent a ‘junior Adityanath’. He did just that by appointingManoj Tiwari to head the Delhi campaign. * SANDEEP SAXENA

The national in the municipal

Shiv Visvanathan

The Maoist attack on the 99-member CentralReserve Police Force (CRPF) party in Sukma,Chhattisgarh, in which at least 25 jawans losttheir lives, has once again brought the focuson not just the threat represented by left-wing extremism (LWE) but also questions ofpreparation, equipping, training andstrategy of the CRPF that is bearing the bruntof the burden in this fight.

The fight against Maoists has been charac-terised by high casualty count of our secur-ity forces. The Sukma attack of April 24 wasreminiscent of the ambush in Dantewada inApril 2010 when Maoists killed 76 CRPF per-sonnel and decamped with their weaponsand explosives.

Deaths after deathsPredictably there is anger, and there will beheavy payback for the Maoists. But it is in-deed inexplicable that despite the five-dec-ade-long insurgent movement, and a largenumber of paramilitary personnel alongwith State police being deployed in Maoism-affected areas, there seems to be no clearstrategic approach to the problem and theforces do not have an upper hand in theareas.

The problem is compounded by the factthat the LWE/Maoists corridor spreadsacross several States and the perceived lackof a common plan has left each State govern-ment combating the Naxals as per their ownstrategy. This is costing lives of scores of ourCRPF and police personnel and the patienceof people to tolerate these slaughters is wear-ing thin.

While there has been a significant drop inMaoist violence in Chhattisgarh in the pastyear when 36 security personnel were killedas compared to 182 in 2007, between 2005and 2017, as many as 1,910 security person-nel were killed in LWE/Maoist attacks in In-dia, out of which 954 casualties were in Ch-hattisgarh alone, including the latestincident.

For several decades, combating LWEs/Maoists has been characterised by recruitingCRPF soldiers, putting them through inad-equate training, giving them a uniform andasking them to make do. There are alsoshortages of Mine Protected Vehicles (MPV).Successive ambushes and attacks haveshown the vulnerability of the CRPF and po-lice parties in the Naxal areas.

The damage and loss of life from attackswith grenade launchers and improvised ex-plosive devices (IED) can be lessened with

movement in armoured vehicles. In 2010,the Centre had sanctioned acquisition of 350MPVs for the CRPF, but in March 2017, therewere only 122 MPVs with the CRPF. Out ofthese 122 MPVs, about a dozen have beenshifted to Jammu and Kashmir.

In an answer to my question on shortageof MPVs in Parliament, the Ministry of HomeAffairs said there was more than one MPVper battalion — though the authorisationstates that every battalion must hold 7-10MPVs.

Need for a dedicated MinistryInadequate combat capability of policeforces in Maoism-affected States remains theprime factor for failing security response asalso dependency of State police forces on theCentral government for anti-Maoistoperations.

Lack of institutionalised intelligence-shar-ing between States and regions and regionalcoordination is being clearly utilised by theLWEs/Maoists.

The Greyhounds special force of undi-vided Andhra Pradesh has by far been themost effective force to have succeeded in re-versing the trend of Maoist violence. Since2005, 429 LWEs/Maoists have been killed inAndhra Pradesh and 36 security personnelhave lost their lives; in Telangana, formed in2014, four LWEs/Maoists have been killedwith no casualties on the security forces’side. In 2012, the Home Ministry had pro-posed to replicate Greyhounds in five Mao-ism-hit States. Clearly, the proposal has notseen the light of day, especially inChhattisgarh.

Apart from the obvious gaps in intelli-gence-gathering, there is clear evidence thatthe CRPF lags on strategy and tactics. Theuse of technology (including drones) to in-crease surveillance around patrols to pre-vent ambushes is inadequate. Losing aquarter of the patrol force in an ambush likethis must get the CRPF leadership to re-eval-uate tactics, training and equipment. Thetime has come for a fundamental transform-ation of the Home Ministry — by moving in-ternal security functions of the governmentto a new, focussed and accountable InternalSecurity Ministry.

The service and sacrifice of our CRPF mar-tyrs must not be in vain and it must be awake-up call for the government, and in par-ticular the Home Ministry. It is a 26/11 mo-ment in our fight against LWEs/Maoists. Thebattle with them must be accompanied bynot just the perseverance and devotion ofour men in uniform, but also better tactics,equipment, training and a determinedstrategy to prevail and win that combines theresources and leadership of all States in-volved and the Central government.

Rajeev Chandrasekhar is Member of Parliament, RajyaSabha and vice-chairman, NDA Kerala

Sukma is a wake-up callOnly better training, equipment and tactics will helpsecurity forces prevail over the Maoists

Rajeev Chandrasekhar

Rent seekingPolitical economy

Rent seeking is a type ofeconomic behaviour, typ-ically found in a climate ofuncertain or weak prop-erty rights enforcement,wherein certain actorsseek to appropriate thewealth of others withoutcreating any new wealth.Rent-seeking behaviourapplies to a variety of situ-ations, from piracy on thehigh seas to lobbying gov-ernments for favourablepolicies. The incentive toundertake rent-seeking ef-forts is weak when an eco-nomy is strong becauseproductive activities arehighly lucrative. Duringtimes of economic stress,the net benefit of corner-ing the surpluses of othersgoes up.

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

CONCEPTUAL

As a house buyer, 7 thingsyou need to know aboutreal estate billbit.ly/REBill2017

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

MORE ON

THE WEB 3

https://telegram.me/TheHindu_Zone https://telegram.me/PDF4EXAMS