The Hindu Editorial Analysis | Free PDF

Table of Contents

Nudged into action: on the Lokpal Act

After long delays, a Supreme Court push is needed to establish the Lokpal
It should have never come to this on the Lokpal.
That it requires a Supreme Court order to nudge the government to make any progress towards establishing the anti-graft institution is a poor commentary on its functioning.
The court has asked the eight-member Search Committee under the Lokpal Act to recommend a panel of names before the end of February.
This shortlist has to be sent to the Selection Committee, headed by the Prime Minister.
It has taken five years since the Lokpal Act, 2013, received the President’s assent on January 1, 2014, for a Search Committee to even begin its work
It was formed only on September 27, 2018, after Common Cause, an NGO, filed a contempt petition against the government over the delay in constituting the authority despite a Supreme Court verdict in April 2017.
It is true that setting up the Search Committee requires some groundwork, as its composition should be drawn from diverse fields such as anti-corruption policy, public administration, law, banking and insurance; also,
half its membership should consist of women, backward class, minority and SC/ST candidates.
However, it is the government’s duty to expedite this process and not cite it as a reason for delay.
Even after it was formed, the Search Committee has been handicapped because of lack of office space, manpower, infrastructure and a secretariat
The court has now asked the government to provide the required infrastructure.
In the past too, the court has admonished the Centre for the delay in creating the institution.
In its April 2017 verdict, the court brushed aside the reason that the government was awaiting the passage of an amendment based on a parliamentary committee report and said there was no legal bar on the Selection Committee moving ahead with its work even if there was a vacancy in it.
There is a good deal of politics behind the delay.
The Selection Committee, which includes

the Lok Sabha Speaker,
the Leader of the Opposition,
the Chief Justice of India and
an eminent jurist,

Has met in the past without Mallikarjun Kharge, who heads the Congress in the Lok Sabha.
He has been skipping meetings, as he is aggrieved that the government has not made him a full member, and has roped him in as a ‘special invitee’.
The government sticks to its view that he has not been recognised as the Leader of the Opposition by the Speaker.
This minor issue has been resolved in respect of appointments to other posts such as CBI Director and Central Vigilance Commissioner by a simple amendment to treat the leader of the largest Opposition party as the Leader of the Opposition for this purpose.
This amendment has not been brought about despite a parliamentary committee report endorsing the idea in December 2015.
Nothing except the lack of political will to establish the Lokpal can explain years of delay.

Shape of the slowdown: on China’s economy

China’s capacity to manage its economic transition has implications the world over
The Chinese growth juggernaut is slowing down. The world’s second-largest economy has reported that its exports for December fell by 4.4%, the sharpest fall in two years amidst rising trade tensions with the United States and fears of a global economic slowdown.
China’s trade surplus with the U.S. has increased to $323 billion, its highest level since 2016 and up 17% from a year ago
This is likely to put added pressure on Chinese exports to the U.S. Besides, China’s factory activity contracted to a two-year low by the end of December while car sales in 2018 dropped for the first time since 1990, pointing to faltering demand from Chinese consumers.
There are increasing fears that the Chinese government may further drop its growth target to 6% this year, from 6.5% last year.
Given its implications for global growth, markets across the world have naturally been worried about the fate of the Chinese economy.
Its stock market, in particular, was the worst-performing among major economies last year.
Apple, Jaguar Land Rover and other companies have warned of weak earnings due to a slowdown in their sales in China.
Responding to fears of a serious slowdown in the economy, the People’s Bank of China on Wednesday injected cash worth $83 billion into the economy through open market operations in order to boost bank lending and overall economic growth.
It is believed that the Chinese government may be prepping for a stimulus worth trillions of yuans to step up spending in the economy.
China has been struggling to transition from its earlier growth model led by cheap exports and huge capital investments into a more domestic consumption-led economy
In particular, the government and the central bank have in recent years tried to wean the economy off cheap debt that fuelled its impressive growth run.
The Chinese central bank fully opened the credit taps of the economy in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis that threatened to derail growth.
But even as it tries to steer the economy towards more consumption-led growth, the state has been wary of allowing economic sectors like real estate that were earlier boosted by the availability of cheap credit to go bust.
A true restructuring of its export- and state-led economic model will not be possible until China allows the liquidation of uneconomical projects that were begun only because of the availability of ample amounts of cheap credit.
This will be the first step towards building a more market-driven economy. But it is not clear whether China is willing to bite the bullet and stop feeding its economy with cheap credit.
It may be tempted to go further and look at socialising the losses coming from defaults on business loans. None of this will be good for the long-term health of the Chinese or the global economy.

The danger of reciprocity: on the independence of the Supreme Court

It is vital the Supreme Court collegium remains firmly independent
Independence, impartiality and fearlessness of judges are not private rights of judges but citizen’s rights. Ultimately judicial legitimacy/ power rests on people’s confidence in courts.
We have yet another controversy surrounding the Supreme Court, with the collegium revisiting decisions made at an earlier meeting and recommending the elevation of two junior judges to the Supreme Court.
No one has any doubts about the competence or integrity of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, but the manner in which it was carried out puts the spotlight once again on the controversial collegium system of judicial appointments.
This seriously undermines the independence of judges and raises unnecessary doubts about the credibility of the highest court as the government is not only the biggest litigator but also the greatest threat to the abuse of power. Judicial review as a concept is supposed to control the government and keep it in check.
How has this panned out in the past? Let’s look back at the Justice K.M. Joseph case. He had struck down the Modi government’s imposition of President’s rule in Uttarakhand and saw the government returning the recommendation for his elevation to the Supreme Court to the collegium last April — his appointment was cleared in August.
This time the government not only did not return the recommendation to the collegium for reconsideration, but approved the appointments instantly.

Learnings from the past

Take the case of Justice A.N. Ray, who was appointed Chief Justice of India (CJI) in 1973 superseding three senior judges, or Justice M.H. Beg, who was appointed CJI superseding Justice H.R. Khanna in 1977.
Both Justice Ray and Justice Beg were excellent judges, but favoured the government. They were considered not forward-looking judges but judges who looked forward to the office of the CJI.
In the bank nationalisation case (1970), while as many as 10 judges went against the government, Justice Ray approved the government’s action.
Similarly, Justice Beg, in the Indira Gandhi election case, held that while democracy is the basic structure, free and fair election is not.The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was struck down by the Supreme Court because it would have compromised the independence of the CJI and given a role to the government in the appointment of judges.
Unlike in the U.S. where judges are appointed by the President and are known to be leaning towards the Democrats or Republicans, Indian judges are not supposed to have any political affiliation.
But is it possible to completely insulate judges from governmental influence?
The answer is no — as George Orwell pointed out in 1984, the government is everywhere, and judges as fellow human beings do get influenced by it.
The judiciary asserts its position only when the government is weak. This collegium system was asserted when we had weak Central governments in the 1990s.

Power and influence

‘Power’ and ‘influence’ are fundamental concepts in society. ‘Influence’ is sometimes considered to be an aspect of ‘power’. Indira Gandhi was influential because she was powerful. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is, similarly, not only powerful but hugely influential.
According to the American sociologist, Alvin Ward Gouldner, the universal norm in human societies is that individuals are obligated to reciprocate favours received.
Gouldner articulated the “norm of reciprocity” in the following manner: “people should help those who have helped them” and “people should not injure those who have helped them”.
In his NJAC judgment (2015), Justice J.S. Khehar discussed the issue of reciprocity at length in striking down the commission.
He referred to Laura E. Little’s work on American judges who felt obliged to the President for nominating them and Senators who helped them in the confirmation process.
Justice Khehar therefore preferred exclusion of the political executive from the appointment of judges as a feeling of gratitude towards the government impacts the independence of the judiciary. • It was for this very reason that even B.R. Ambedkar wanted to insulate the judiciary from political pressures.
In his autobiography, Roses in December, the former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, M.C. Chagla, who also served as a Minister in Indira Gandhi’s Cabinet, boldly stated the adverse impact of supersession when he said, “the effect of these supersessions was most deleterious on the judges of the Supreme Court who were in the line of succession to the Chief Justiceship.
Each eyed the other with suspicion and tried to outdo him in proclaiming his loyalty to the Government either in their judgments or even on public platforms.”
A similar depiction of the apex court was made by Justice H.R. Khanna, who himself was superseded, in his book, Neither Roses Nor Thorns, when he recalled, “one of the new trends was the change in the approach of the court with a view to give tilt in favour of upholding the orders of the government.
Under the cover of high sounding words like social justice the court passed orders, the effect of which was to unsettle settled principles and dilute or undo the dicta laid down in the earlier cases.”
The Hindu right’s opposition to the Constitution is an open secret.
The prospect of a 15-judge bench overturning Kesavananda BharatiVs State of Kerala (1973), which outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution, does not look too remote in the near future if the government continues to exert pressure on the collegium and if the collegium, due to reciprocity, does not effectively assert its power and independence.
Most governments prefer pliable judges but many of our judges remain wedded to their oath and decide cases without fear or favour.
True reciprocity affects humans but since our judges are addressed as ‘Lords’, let them not have any feeling of gratitude towards anyone.

Some call it democracy: on the charge sheet against JNU students

To call for the overthrow of a stale and fearful social system is not sedition. It is democracy
Sedition and conspiracy charges have been filed against three former students of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), and seven others.
If these charges are established, 10 young Indians could be sentenced to life-term imprisonment.
A great deal has been said and written about the need to banish a 19th century law, introduced by Lord Macaulay, from the statute books.
It may be time to ask another question: what kind of a government wages war on its own students? History tells us that short-sighted governments do precisely this.

he spirit of 1968

In May 1968, students in universities across France rose in revolt against hide-bound, patriarchal and class-governed structures, from the family, the capitalist market, to the government ruled by the conservative President Charles de Gaulle.
In early 1968, students at the campus of the University of Paris at Nanterre, located on the outskirts of the capital city, had launched a protest.
They campaigned against the involvement of Western governments in the Vietnam War, against sexual unfreedom, and for the realisation of liberty that the French had, less than 200 years ago, fought for.

In May, students at the Sorbonne expressed solidarity with their fellow students, and revolted.

Young women and men took to the streets, and as a result were beaten up by the police.
Hundreds of them were arrested. This led to the closing down of the prestigious university.
Ironically, police brutality incited even more students to join the movement. The police assaulted young people with tear gas and swinging batons.
But students were determined to re-enact the spectacular 1789 revolution that had been left unfinished in some respects.
They constructed hundreds of barricades in the Latin Quarter of Paris. The slogan that inspired them to defy the police was: “politics is the art of the impossible.”
On May 13, workers from the Renault factory joined the protests and struck work.
Factories were closed, trains ground to a halt, and the French government came to a standstill.
De Gaulle had not taken student demonstrations seriously; he had to pay for this serious lapse of judgment.
He dissolved Parliament and mobilised hundreds of supporters to counter the protest.
His party came back to power after the elections, but in the following April he resigned after his government lost a referendum.
He had thought the results would demonstrate his acceptability to the people of France. The French did not forgive him for going to war against his own students.
Fifty years later, May 1968 is remembered as the month and the year when university students launched a political, cultural and sexual revolution.
And the world recollected the words of the English poet William Wordsworth, who in The Prelude wrote of the 1789 French Revolution: “Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, But to be young was very heaven! O times…When Reason seemed the most to assert her rights.” Wordsworth was perceptive. • The vision, the energy and the language invented by rebellious young people inject a breath of fresh air into our jaded and bankrupt political discourses.
If the young do not struggle for emancipation, who will?

Three years ago

Students assembled on the grounds of JNU more than three years ago spoke of liberation from a caste-ridden and inegalitarian society.
They reiterated the need to abolish capital punishment, which many fine legal minds have also condemned. They pointed out that the government should address escalating tensions in the Kashmir Valley. Some elements, reportedly outsiders, shouted anti-India slogans.
This is hardly sedition.
Will our great country and ancient civilisation collapse because of some idiotic slogans? We ought to have confidence in the capacity of India to endure youthful indiscretions, the country has survived infinitely more serious attacks on its territorial integrity. It is ridiculous to charge students with sedition when all that they were asking for was the breaking of shackles.
There was no violence, no call to use force or grind the capital city of Delhi to a halt, no suggestion that the gathering lay siege to official institutions, or ask for the resignation of the government.
The conversation was in perfect conformity with the spirit of public universities.
The public university is not a teaching shop. Within the metaphorical walls of the university we find classrooms and libraries. We also find open spaces where students assemble and discuss political predicaments, cafes and dhabas where they interact with co-students who come from different regions of the country, and statues of leaders that form a rallying point for protests.
The Vivekananda statue outside the main library in the North Campus in Delhi University has been a fulcrum of student politics since my student days.
Through these activities, students become familiar with the notion of citizenship.
They connect with others, they learn that they have the constitutional right to challenge the power of elected representatives.
It is in the university that they absorb the virtue of solidarity. It is here that they learn that in a democracy they have the right to make their own histories, even if they make these histories badly.
University students have the right to acquaint the public and the government with depressing tales of how lives are led in an inegalitarian society.
In a representative democracy we are supposed to communicate opinions and demands through elected representatives.
But representatives, we have found, are too busy manipulating public opinion to get power.
Fairly early in the biography of representative democracy, citizens realised that they would have to put forth their needs, their interests, and their aspirations into the public domain through networks of associations. The intent is not to contest elections or take over the state — the idea is to raise issues, and provoke debates on what the good society is, and how it can be brought into existence.
This is precisely what young people were doing some years ago, and more of them should be discussing problems that have been left unresolved by unresponsive governments all this while. People in power should recognise the importance of political debate in civil society, they should learn to heed demands catapulted into the public domain by student associations.
If some hotheads shout objectionable slogans, ignore them as long as these do not lead to harm. This is how mature democracies behave.

The political impulse

The age when young people were infatuated with the politics of the impossible, 1968, ended, but it threw up several movements that changed the world.
They re-cast gender relations, emphasised civil liberties, empowered alternative sexualities, and familiarised us with the tyrannies of power. That was fifty years ago.
Once again, the young need to experience the “blissful dawn” and call for the overthrow of caste discrimination, inequality, patriarchy and other remnants of an oppressive order in India. This will complete the objectives of our freedom struggle, for political equality is inadequate without social and economic equality.
To call for the overthrow of a stale and fearful social system is not sedition. We call it democracy. We fight for democracy not, in Wordsworth’s words, “in Utopia, subterranean fields, Or some secreted island…But in the very world, which is the world/ Of all of us, the place where in the end/ We find our happiness, or not at all.”
India inks agreement for Uzbek uranium To meet India’s long-term energy requirements, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uzbek President Shakat Mirziyoyev on Friday inked a pact for import of uranium from the Central Asian country. The agreement was signed at an event on the sidelines of Vibrant Gujarat Summit where Mr. Mirziyoyev is one of the chief guests, in addition to a deal for $200 million credit for housing projects in Uzbekistan.

Rajasthan’s State bird may be extinct soon

Only 50 Great Indian Bustards left in the wild, no action on plan to save them ▪ Almost two years after the Rajasthan government proposed setting up of captive breeding centres for the Great Indian Bustards to boost their wild population, the wildlife activists here have called for enforcement of recovery plan for the country’s most critically endangered bird. The GIB’s last remnant wild population of about 50 in Jaisalmer district accounts for 95% of its total world population