KI

IW

Hindu Feb 4

KI
IW

Content
Importance of underenforcement

Leaving people out of development

Modi's Beijing visit could be the 'opportunity of the century'

Terrorism threatens Japan

On expected lines

Dispossession, development and democracy

Does Section 66A curb or safeguard the social media?

Notes by vineetpunnoose on www.kiwipaper.com

KI
IW

Importance of underenforcement

Wed, Feb 4, 2015

contempt of court, The Hindu, polity,

Given the secure institutional position of courts, we should err on the side of
underenforcement that promotes genuine criticism, rather than overenforcement which
seeks to stifle illegitimate criticism.
The Supreme Court and High Court judgments bear out that exercising the criminal
contempt jurisdiction passes as much of a judgment about the listener as it does about
the speaker. The Supreme Court was mindful of the effects that the speech would have
on the "village population" that it addressed while the Kerala High Court noted its
concern that the "fickle minded public" would, after hearing the speech, jump to the
conclusion that the courts cannot be relied upon to do justice. People can judge for
themselves whether to discredit the judgments of the High Court, Paradoxically, the
contempt proceedings have lent much greater publicity to the statements than they
deserved.
One of the reasons offered by the Supreme Court was that the judges, by virtue of their
position, are unable to respond to criticism. That may be true, but it is irrelevant. To
their credit, judges of the Supreme Court have consistently recognised that contempt
of court protects the authority of the institution, not that of the judge. The inability of
judges to personally respond to criticism, then, is overcome by the ability of civil society
to condemn the kind of statements made by the ex-MLA. In their private capacity,
judges retain the power to commence proceedings for libel or slander.
The law of criminal contempt for 'scandalising the authority of the court' has often
been criticised as having originated in imperialist thought. The argument was that the
authority of imperial courts needed to be foisted upon colonised populations, in order
to prevent the judicial system from being discredited. Even the possible postcolonial
justification, however, fails. It might be argued that contempt of court powers are
necessary where courts in independent nations are still seeking to establish their
legitimacy. But that is profoundly untrue of the Supreme Court and High Courts, which,
despite their imperfections, are widely considered as the most trusted institutions of
state.

Leaving people out of development

Wed, Feb 4, 2015

environment, The Hindu, social,

For some years now, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF)has been perceived
as a roadblock to development or a facilitator for the industry depending on which side
you are on.
The Ministry had humble beginnings: it began as a department in 1980 and was set up

Notes by vineetpunnoose on www.kiwipaper.com

Page 1

KI
IW

as a Ministry in 1985 after India's participation in the United Nations Conference on

the Human Environment in Stockholm. It was in many ways Prime Minister Indira
Gandhi's leadership and participation in Stockholm which prompted the Ministry's
inception. Now, India has a plethora of laws which relate to the environment and its
regulation.
Over time, even as many notifications have come into force after Supreme Court orders,
the National Green Tribunal (NGT) was set up in 2010 -- infinitely more effective than
the earlier National Environment Appellate Authority. However, enforcement is far
from satisfactory.
The raging debate between environment and development is even more intense now
as the country is on an ambitious growth path and there is scant regard for people's
rights or natural resources.
All over the country there are struggles against projects which threaten to displace
people, deprive them of land and livelihoods and give them no decent alternatives.
Northeast India, ignored by policymakers for long, has become the new battleground
against massive hydel projects. In this scenario, protection of the environment and
people's livelihoods are pitted against the powerful industry lobby and there are no
prizes for guessing who is winning.
There are also threats to dilute the Forest Rights Act (FRA). Last August, the MoEF
decided to appoint a High-Level Committee (HLC) headed by a former Cabinet Secretary
to review six environmental laws. As the committee's report created disquiet, it is now
being reviewed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment which has
already heard one round of criticism from leading environmentalists in the country.
The HLC went straight for the jugular and targeted the regulatory mechanism. The only
reasoned suggestion it seems to have made is on genetically modified (GM) crops where
it advocates caution.
Besides that, that it has proposed a new Environment Law (Management) Act under
which new offences are prescribed, applicants who want environmental clearances for
projects are expected to be honest and truthful, and the concept of 'utmost good faith'
is statutorily introduced. The HLC dilutes the role of the NGT; the Tribunal will only
be able to judicially review the decision of Appellate Boards. It introduces special
environment courts and proposes new agencies -- the National Environment Management
Authority at the national level and the State Environment Management Authority to
replace the Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Boards, both
of which are notorious for their inaction and corruption. Replacing them with a new
set of committees is not going to improve efficiency or honesty. Little wonder then that
the report of the HLC has sparked nationwide outrage.

Notes by vineetpunnoose on www.kiwipaper.com

Page 2

KI
IW

The report violates Article 21 of the Constitution since interests of industry have been
given importance, and overrides the right to clean air, water and a balanced ecosystem
The critique notes that recommendations of the HLC suggest dispensing with public
hearings in projects of "strategic" and "national importance" and dispensing with public
hearings in most regions that are already severely polluted. This is based on the theory
that there is no need to hear the affected public since the situation cannot possibly get
worse. The power sector and coal mining projects undefined 'fast track treatment'
through 'Special Procedure' that appear likely to short-circuit or eliminate public
hearings and gram sabha approval. The way in which the revised procedure is
recommended, approval will be a matter of right, the critique says.
The government's decisions to block funding for Greenpeace and other environment
NGOs and not allow a campaigner to go abroad to speak on coal mining in Mahan are
clear indications that dissent is not going to be tolerated. Last year's Intelligence Bureau
report on NGOs explicitly sets out an agenda to curb movements which question the
current development path.
Sustainable development needs serious commitment, capacity building at the local level
and urgent action. Science has clearly underscored the need for urgent action if the
world has to be saved from the irreversible impacts of climate change. The HLC is
silent on climate change for the most part and it will be astounding if India, poised to
grow more, doesn't factor in climate change while "streamlining" its environmental
laws. In the urgency to grant industry its due with promises of 'Make in India,' those
already in India, especially the marginalised, cannot continue to be victims of grave
policy neglect and continuing alienation.

Modi's Beijing visit could be the 'opportunity of the century'

Wed, Feb 4, 2015

The Hindu, international, Russia, China,

Sections of the Chinese media are interpreting Ms. Swaraj's audience with President
Xi Jinping as an exceptional gesture from the Chinese side, signalling the importance
Beijing now attaches to ties with India.
With investible funds in the West shrinking, the success of Mr. Modi's "Make in India"
campaign relies heavily on large-scale investments from China to revive the job-creating
manufacturing sector. By Tuesday, the Chinese side had strongly signalled that it would
follow up on its commitments to investment in India. China and India should continue
their cooperation in various fields, including industrial parks and the railway project,
to benefit the 2.5 billion people of the two countries and the global economy.
Observers say that Russia and China's endorsement of India's membership of the
21-nation Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) was a significant takeaway from
Ms. Swaraj's visit. If accomplished, APEC membership could open the gates for New

Notes by vineetpunnoose on www.kiwipaper.com

Page 3

KI
IW

Delhi's constructive engagement in the Indo-Pacific theatre, expanding its strategic

bandwidth significantly.
Ms. Swaraj has also reassured her hosts, that rather than pursuing a western-oriented,
China-containment policy, India backs new, inclusive security architecture in the
Asia-Pacific.
Hoping to reduce its reliance on the vulnerable Malacca Straits, China is developing
deep water ports in the Indian Ocean, which it hopes to connect with the mainland
through a string of road and railway corridors as part of its 21st century Maritime Silk
Road (MSR) initiative. the situation leaves the Modi administration no choice but to
push for a practical, detailed and hands-on strategic dialogue with China, to ensure that
the kernel of sea-based commerce is preserved and expanded, without the militarisation
of the Indian Ocean waters, with countries such as Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Maldives
serving as some of the nodes.
The Chinese side has begun to show sensitivity to India's concerns regarding the MSR.
Given India's enormous influence in South Asia, especially over countries like Sri
Lanka and Bangladesh, it would be wise for China to dispel such doubts during Modi's
visit and show India that the initiative is really meant to benefit both countries."
Regarding the Sino-Indian border row, Xinhua quoted President Xi as saying that "the
two sides should patiently control and manage disputes to prevent them from affecting
the overall relationship." He counselled "sincerity and willingness to pursue a gradual
and appropriate resolution of disputes."

Terrorism threatens Japan

Wed, Feb 4, 2015

terrorism, The Hindu, international, Japan,

The purported beheading by Islamic State (IS) of two Japanese journalists, and its
warning that Japan would be one of its military targets in future, pose a challenge to
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's government. Its impact would perhaps mark a critical
shift in Japanese foreign policy and public opinion. Japan has largely been insulated
from international terrorism in the past decade and radical Islam has little or almost nil
hold in the country. Japan's pacifism is embodied in its Constitution of 1946, through
which it has renounced war and outlawed belligerent responses to international disputes.
Japan does not maintain an army with war potential, except for the de facto Japan
Self-Defence Forces (JSDF) that is intended to maintain peace and order. With a pacifist
foreign policy that strongly distances itself from militaristic ventures, why is Japan
now a target of Islamic terrorism?
Prime Minister Abe, a conservative-nationalist, has been gradually rewriting the pacifist
Constitution, especially since his 2012 re-election. The defence budget was considerably

Notes by vineetpunnoose on www.kiwipaper.com

Page 4

KI
IW

enhanced, the ban on arms exports was lifted and the capabilities of the JSDF were
expanded. A reinterpretation of Article 9 of the Constitution now allows Japan to use
force to defend its allies under attack. Being a resource-poor country, it is one of the
largest importers of crude oil from the region. Political stability in the Middle East is
in Japan's own interests. Mr. Abe, during his recent visits to Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon,
Israel and Palestine, pledged $200 million in non-military aid for countries fighting IS.
He also promised humanitarian and infrastructure assistance for those fighting terrorism,
as well as for refugees displaced from Syria and Iraq following IS activity. Mr. Abe's
attempts to gain prominence on the international stage by playing a bigger role in the
West's counter-terrorism policy has clearly drawn bitter reactions from IS, as reflected
in the outrageous beheadings

On expected lines

Wed, Feb 4, 2015

The Hindu, economics, inflation, interest rates,

A fortnight after surprising the markets with a 0.25 percentage point cut in benchmark
interest rates, the Reserve Bank of India has opted for a standstill policy on rates in its
bimonthly monetary policy review, which is along expected lines. When it cut rates on
January 15, the RBI had clearly said that any further easing would be contingent upon
data confirming the disinflationary trend and sustained high-quality fiscal consolidation.
Given that there has been no significant development on either front, the central bank
has decided to maintain an unchanged stance on interest rates. However, to improve
liquidity, and in line with its policy of lowering the Statutory Liquidity Ratio to increase
availability of funds for infrastructure lending, the RBI has reduced SLR by 0.50
percentage points to 21.50 per cent. This is expected to release about Rs.45,000 crore
into the system.
Meanwhile, the RBI's bias towards further easing of rates is very clear, but the downward
momentum will be determined by the pace of disinflation and the government's fiscal
stance in the coming Budget. Though inflationary expectations are at their lowest in
21 months, the risks stem from the traditional upswing in food prices at the onset of
summer, the progress of the monsoon and a turnaround in global crude oil prices that
have already rebounded from their lows in the last couple of days. The RBI will also
be closely watching the government's fiscal math and its commitment to keep the
deficit within targeted levels. While the current account deficit is projected at a very
comfortable 1.3 per cent of GDP for 2014-15, exports could suffer in the coming months
thanks to the problems in the eurozone, which is India's largest trading partner. The
central bank also has reasons to be wary about the effects of the quantitative easing
programme of the European Central Bank on India's financial and currency markets.

Notes by vineetpunnoose on www.kiwipaper.com

Page 5

KI
IW
Dispossession, development and democracy

Wed, Feb 4, 2015

The Hindu, polity, Land acquisition act, democracy,

Since it was passed by Parliament in September 2013, the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LARR)
has been criticised from all sides. Farmers and social movements argued that LARR
failed to adequately compensate land losers, contained large loopholes such as exempting
irrigation projects, and, most importantly, continued to allow land acquisition for private
companies. Industrialists, developers, and State governments, on the other hand,
complained that the bill would delay projects, increase the costs of land acquisition,
and impede economic growth.
The ordinance effectively eliminates the main features of LARR that gave rural people
some protection from arbitrary dispossession. First, it removes the requirement that the
government obtain the consent of 80 per cent of affected people before taking their
land for private projects, and 70 per cent of affected people for public-private partnership
(PPP) projects. The ordinance thus restores the ability of the government to acquire
land for any private purpose it likes, with no need to win the support of the affected.
Second, the ordinance eliminates the Social Impact Assessments (SIA) that LARR had
mandated as a pre-condition for proceeding with land acquisition. This restores the
ability of the government to dispossess land from people without even assessing its
negative consequences, much less weighing them against projected benefits. Without
SIAs, there is no way to even determine who is affected, thus undermining the bill's
promise that non-land owners -- such as labourers, sharecroppers, artisans, and fishworkers
-- will also be compensated. In addition to these major changes, the ordinance increases
the amount of time that a government or company can keep unutilised land, and removes
LARR's strong penalties for non-complying officials.
Chakravorty argued that LARR created a "windfall for land-losers" by doubling or
quadrupling already high market prices, thus raising the cost of land acquisition to
"unsustainable levels." The ordinance, while keeping generous compensation levels in
place, would helpfully reduce the indirect costs entailed by conducting SIAs and
obtaining consent from affected people.
Capturing the huge gap between market prices and compensation prices is, in fact, the
primary motive behind much land acquisition in India today. We might call this gap
the "dispossession windfall" -- it exists only because the government is willing to force
farmers into selling, and provides a subsidy to whoever receives the land. The transparent
injustice of this practice was one factor behind the widespread farmer protests that
finally pressured the United Progressive Alliance -- with Bharatiya Janata Party support
-- into passing LARR. But it is important to note that LARR did not eliminate the
dispossession windfall. LARR's compensation formula involves multiplying the circle

Notes by vineetpunnoose on www.kiwipaper.com

Page 6

KI
IW

rate -- not the market rate -- by two in urban areas and four in rural areas (a distinction,
moreover, it leaves for States to establish). Although one might argue that this multiplier
is arbitrary, it certainly does not bring compensation prices up to market prices. To
argue that farmers are reaping a windfall from LARR at the expense of the private
sector is to reverse reality. To argue for a reduction in compensation to farmers is to
defend the use of eminent domain for generating corporate super-profits.
The second problem with this argument is that by focussing on prices, it evades the
more fundamental question of politics: why should a democratic government forcibly
take land from farmers and give it to private companies? Most economists assume that
any "higher value" land use than agriculture constitutes development and thus a public
purpose. But what constitutes development, and whether that development is a "public
purpose" worthy of dispossessing farmers, is not a technical or even a legal question,
but a political one. And it is a political question that should be put in historical perspective.
During the post-Independence years, the Indian state mostly acquired land for public
sector projects. Land acquisition for private companies was legal under LAA, but was
limited in practice due to the existence of a development model in which the public
sector built infrastructure and controlled the "commanding heights" of the economy.
Most land acquisition was for public sector dams, mines, and industry. While tens of
millions of people were dispossessed of their land for these projects, the Nehruvian
state was fairly effective at convincing the public that these projects served the national
interest in state-led development.
This question has only become more relevant since economic liberalisation prompted
State governments to start acquiring land for private companies on a large scale. The
reforms of the early 1990s gave greater importance to the private sector, which began
demanding land not just for manufacturing (which remained fairly stagnant), but for
real estate, mineral extraction, and all manner of infrastructure under PPP agreements.
This new regime of dispossession reached scale in the mid-2000s with Special Economic
Zones and the practice of urban development authorities simply auctioning off acquired
land to private developers. Capturing the dispossession windfall itself became the
purpose of land acquisition as State governments quietly morphed into land brokers
for private capital.
The question now facing India is about politics, not prices: should the government
systematically redistribute land from farmers to private companies? Advocates of
liberalisation say yes, ironically conceding that growth in a "free market" economy
requires government expropriation of private property. They claim that this growth will
trickle down to the poor, including those rural people asked to give their land for it.
They are often not squeamish in admitting that democracy is an impediment to their
model of economic growth. Many farmers, on the other hand, have voiced their
scepticism, arguing not only that they are undercompensated but also that the profit of

Notes by vineetpunnoose on www.kiwipaper.com

Page 7

KI
IW

private companies is not a public purpose.

Does Section 66A curb or safeguard the social media?

Wed, Feb 4, 2015

free speech, The Hindu, polity, Section 66A, cyber crime,

The law prescribes 3-years jail for anyone causing "annoyance or inconvenience" on
the social media. Does constantly posting animal videos qualify as annoying and
culpable?
Does the cyber cell of the police have the expertise to judge whether an Internet user
is being annoying enough to be arrested?
Does the curb on offensive/annoying posts encroach upon fundamental rights such as
expressing political dissent, for instance?
Does Section 66A curb or safeguard the social media?
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act seems to have accentuated the thin
line between the rights of free speech and taking offence.
Section 66A provides punishment for sending offensive messages through communication
services.
These messages may be any information created, transmitted or received on a computer
system, resource or device including attachments in the form of...
* Text
* Images
* Audio
* Video
* Any other electronic record which may be transmitted with the message
The law targets messages that...
* Are grossly offensive or menacing
* Proffer false information intending to cause annoyance, inconvenience, intimidation,
insult, obstruction, etc.,
* Are intended at deceiving the addressee about the origin of the message
The law was amended in 2008 and received Presidential assent on February 5, 2009.

Notes by vineetpunnoose on www.kiwipaper.com

Page 8