Selected Articles from Various News Paper: Civil Services Mentor Magazine December 2014

Selected Articles from Various Newspapers & Journals

Battle Lines Sharpen over GM

Union Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Prakash Javadekar, was petitioned by farmers and the Swadeshi Jagran Manch to halt trials of transgenic crops approved by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) on July 18 and there is some confusion if the government has actually taken such a decision. The GEAC decision has come even before the Supreme Court decides on a writ petition filed by Aruna Rodrigues in 2005, demanding a moratorium on genetically modified (GM) crops. A court hearing on July 15 did not take place but three days later, the GEAC cleared field trials for some GM crops.

The Centre had filed a response to the report of the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) in April 2014; the apex court is yet to adjudicate on it. The GEAC was quick to point out that the Supreme Court had not imposed a ban on confined field trials. But the comprehensive Parliamentary Standing Committee report on agriculture in 2012 had taken a clear stand against field trials.

The TEC called for strengthening the existing regulatory system before granting permission for conducting more field trials. In the absence of a ruling from the Supreme Court, the GEAC steamed ahead with what it thought fit, even as some States were against GM field trials. It clearly went against the opinion of the TEC and parliamentary committee reports and also a letter endorsed by over 250 scientists against field trials of GM crops. Research is important, said a GEAC official, even as he maintained that a blanket ban is unacceptable. The GEAC, it seems, could not wait for the Supreme Court’s decision.

It is this very regulatory process that has come into question in the past by the parliamentary committee and the TEC, which was constituted by the apex court in 2012 to advise it on issues related to GM crops field trials and bio-safety assessment. After the TEC submitted an interim report in October 2012, the Centre said it was scientifically flawed and did not address the terms of reference and merits outright rejection since it has exceeded its mandate. Later, the apex court appointed Dr. Rajendra Singh Paroda as a member who submitted a separate dissenting report when the five other TEC members submitted theirs in July 2013.

The Centre’s affidavit trashed the TEC report on several counts and accepted Dr. Paroda’s report which it felt had addressed all the terms of reference. It defended the present regulatory system in the country saying it was adequate and robust and the government was committed to strengthening it while praying for this writ to be dismissed.

The Centre was also perturbed by TEC’s suggestion that there should be a moratorium on trial for crops which originated in India. The TEC had also recommended a moratorium on field trials of herbicide-tolerant crops until the issue had been examined by an independent committee. The government said such recommendations were beyond the mandate of the TEC and based on scientifically flawed reports..

The GEAC, by granting approval to GM trials even before the Supreme Court ruled in the matter, has shown an undue haste which has marked the history of transgenic crop approvals in India. In a way, it has disregarded the committee of experts appointed by the government itself after the Court’s order. There are grave concerns about a loss of biodiversity — something that has happened already in the case of cotton and some other crops — and bio-safety regulations.

India is a signatory to international conventions on both subjects. It is imperative to proceed with caution on the issue of GM crops, move away from conflict of interest situations and take an impartial and rigorous scientific view which should benefit humanity at large and not just powerful corporations.

The Humble Brinjal’s Bt Moment?

Moratorium on Introduction

The moratorium had been imposed because of four crucial reasons. First, no State government cutting across party lines and ideologies supported the commercialisation. Second, there appeared to be no overwhelming consensus on it in the domestic and international scientific community. Third, there were concerns that seed supply would be the monopoly — direct and indirect — of one multinational company. Fourth, there appeared to be a persuasive case for more tests and trials under an agreed protocol and under an independent regulatory agency that would inspire wider confidence.

Professor Visvanathan draws attention to the public consultations that were held which he feels strengthened the democratic process. These took place in seven cities — Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhubaneswar, Chandigarh, Kolkata, Hyderabad and Nagpur. Kolkata and Bhubaneswar were selected because West Bengal and Odisha account for 50 per cent of brinjal production in India. Ahmedabad was selected because of the success of Bt cotton in Gujarat. Nagpur was chosen because it is the home of India’s premier research institution in cotton and there have been controversies over Bt cotton in Vidarbha. Chandigarh was included because it is the capital of India’s two most agriculturally advanced States while Bangalore and Hyderabad were chosen because they are the most important centres for biotech Research and Development (R&D).

The extreme intolerance on the part of the civil society activists as well as the disdainful arrogance on the part of the scientists were on full display. Simultaneously, the views of over 60 scientists in India, the U.S., France, New Zealand and other countries were sought. A number of them supported commercialisation while many others opposed it. Some others advocated caution and called for more data.

The second step which needs to be taken is to ask the National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad and the Central Food Technological Research Institute, Mysore to undertake a careful study of the chronic effects of Bt brinjal on human health. This is analogous to the studies carried out on the impact of tobacco smoking on the incidence of lung cancer in human beings. It will be in the national interest to complete these two steps before a decision on the release of Bt brinjal for commercial cultivation and human consumption is taken.”

The speaking order had also expressed the hope that the moratorium period would be used productively to (i) operationalise the independent regulatory body in its entirety as recommended by many scientists as well as civil society organisations; (ii) build a broader political (and public) consensus on the use of genetic engineering in agriculture; and (iii) give serious thought to the strategic importance of the seed industry and how we can retain public and farmer control over it even as we encourage private investment in this area. Alas, none of these three hopes has been even partially realised as yet.

The then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had himself spoken about the issue in his address to the Indian Science Congress on January 3, 2010, in Thiruvananthapuram and the spirit of his remarks permeated the speaking order. He had said:

“Developments in biotechnology present us the prospect of greatly improving yields in our major crops by increasing resistance to pests and also moisture stress. Bt cotton has been well accepted in our country and has made a great difference to the production of cotton. The technology of genetic modification is also being extended to food crops though this raises legitimate questions of safety. These must be given full weightage, with appropriate regulatory control based on strictly scientific criteria. Subject to these caveats, we should pursue all possible leads that biotechnology provides that increases our food security as we go through climate related stress.”

Strengthening public sector R&D and reviving the public sector seed industry are critical imperatives if India is to move ahead in this vital area. The U.S. approach has been one of permissions, while the European approach has been one of prohibitions. The moratorium was the middle path based on precautions, an approach that would be both responsible to science and responsive to society. That, in my view, is the only way forward. The present acrimony must give way to a reasoned and sober dialogue.

Irrational Prejudice

That India still has no anti-discrimination law to protect the interests of HIV positive people shows how little the nation as a whole cares about them and how callous society is to their plight. As a result, discrimination against HIV positive people, including children, rears its ugly head time and again. The latest example is the case of 13 HIV positive orphans studying in a school in Rivona, Goa, being forced to leave school because of pressure from parents of other students; these children join the ranks of a couple of hundred others in India who have faced the same fate. Stigma and discrimination have affected and gravely impeded the battle against HIV. Besides anxiety and denial, the mortal fear of being stigmatised and discriminated against prevents many from seeking early testing and treatment. As a result, they not only fail to get timely intervention but also go about infecting others. Only about half of the 2.1 million people in India who are HIV positive are currently on antiretroviral treatment. It’s a shame that this situation prevails even 28 years after the first person with HIV was diagnosed in Chennai. Besides doing nothing to end discrimination, this incident amply demonstrates that the state has failed to raise awareness and dispel the myths and misconceptions about the routes of HIV transmission. The sexual route, transfusion of HIV infected blood, being pricked by a needle used on an HIV positive person, and from infected mother to child are the only modes of HIV transmission. Also, the fact that young children are infected with the virus turns the spotlight on our failing to eliminate transmission from pregnant mother to child. Preventing vertical transmission is one of the easiest ways to cut the incidence rate. Refusal of school admission and expulsion from school are but only the beginning of a long journey of discrimination and negative social response that HIV positive people encounter. Eviction of HIV positive tenants from houses, refusal to employ such people and even ostracism from villages are not uncommon. But most alarming is the refusal by most private hospitals to admit HIV positive people, and the fear among many doctors and paramedics to treat them. These individuals who are supposed to be best informed seem to suffer from the same paranoia that has seized the common man. In stark contrast, doctors have no hesitation in treating those with hepatitis B and C, which are much more easily transmissible than HIV by the same routes. Hence, the compulsion to broad-base the Health Minister’s initiative to “mainstream AIDS awareness to reduce HIV infection rate” to also address the issue of discrimination cannot be overemphasised.

A Matter of Martyrs

July 31-August 1, 1857. It was the day of Bakrid (Id-ul-Fitr). Two hundred and eighty-two sepoys of the Indian army, who rebelled against the British colonial occupation of India, were massacred and dumped into a dry well 100 yards from the Ajnala police station in Amritsar district. The remains were dug out recently by the town people themselves, without any governmental help. At the time of this article going to press, the cremation was scheduled to take place on August 1. The Punjab Government has allotted a plot of land for the cremation, and a memorial will be built on it later.

Two accounts are available about the Ajnala incident. One was the colonial version of Frederic Cooper, the then Deputy Commissioner of Amritsar district, whose book The Crisis in the Punjab from the 10th of May Until the Fall of Delhi was published in 1858 from London. The other, published in the 1920s, was a nationalist version, by Giani Hira Singh Dard, a respected Punjabi writer, historian and editor of the Punjabi magazine Phulwari from Amritsar. His version was carried with photographs in the November 1928 Fansi Ank (Execution Issue) from Allahabad, and it was later included in the nationalist historian and editor Pt. Sunder Lal’s proscribed book Bharat Mein Angrezi Raj (British Rule in India). Giani Hira Singh Dard had recorded the eyewitness account of Baba Jagat Singh, who was nearly 95 in 1928 and was in his twenties at the time of the massacre.

Rebellion broke out in Meerut on May 10, 21 days ahead of the decided date. As per Cooper’s account, thousands of Poorbeah sepoys — of the 26th Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry — were disarmed in Lahore’s Meean Meer Cant. The rebellion spread in different regions of Punjab, which Cooper spelled as Lahore, Umritsur, Phillour, Jhelum, Sealkote, Jullundur, Ferozepore, Sirsa, Hote Mardan, Peshawur and Loodhianah [Lahore, Amritsar, Phillaur, Jhelum, Sealkote, Jalandhar, Ferozepur, Sirsa, Hote Mardan, Peshawar, Loodhianah]. The British Government with support from feudal chieftains of Patiala, Jind, Kapurthla and Kashmir, hundreds of mutineers were ‘slaughtered’ in the term used by Cooper himself in different areas of Punjab. Cooper proudly and teasingly counts the killings of mutineers in August 1857 in Peshawar area to 659. “Some idea may be gathered of the terrific and swift destruction, when it is remembered that the strength of the regiment before the mutiny amounted to 871. The Punjab Infantry shot and killed 125; Captain James’ party killed 40; Lieutenant Gosling’s party killed 15. The Peshawur Light Horse, the villagers, and H.M.’s 27th and 70th killed 36. By sentence of drum-head court-martial, on the same day, there were executed by H. M.’s 87th, 187; and by a similar summary tribunal, on the 29th of August, 167; also on the same date, 84; one thanahdar killed five: total, within about 30 hours after the mutiny, no less than 659!(The Crisis in Punjab, Frederic Cooper, Page 177, Elder and Son, Smith, London, 1858) On July 30, nearly 500 disarmed sepoys rebelled near Ajnala. One of them — Prakash Singh, alias Prakash Pandey — killed Major Spencer with the Major’s own sword, and they all fled south, only to be trapped near Ajnala, by Tehsildar Dewan Pran Nath’s agents, who alerted the district administration. Armed forces arrived and rained bullets. Many people jumped into the river near the village of Daddian and drowned. Others were taken to the Ajnala police station to be hanged, while some were forced into a dungeon. Deputy Commissioner Cooper had ordered a long rope. The rebels were to be killed on the night of July 31. Due to rain, the execution was postponed until the next morning.

On August 1, 237 rebel sepoys were taken out to an open ground in front of the police station and killed in turns of 10. When those in the dungeon did not show up, it was found that 45 of them had suffocated to death. The 282 bodies were thrown into a dry well, 100 yards from the police station. The well was filled with sand. Cooper called it ‘rebel’s grave’ and wanted that written in Persian, Gurmukhi and English. At two places in his book, he compares this well to Holwell’s Black Hole of Calcutta of 1756 and the well of Cawnpore of 1857, where rebels dumped the bodies of British officials. Cooper’s glee on attaining revenge is evident. “There is a well at Cawnpore, but there is also one at Ajnala!” The well was in place till 1972, inscribed with the words Kalian Wala Khuh (The Well of Blacks). In 1928, it looked like a raised sand hill. In 1957, the centenary celebrations of 1857 were observed here in the presence of the then Chief Minister Pratap Singh Kairon. However, in 1972, villagers built a room over the well and turned it into a Gurdwara. In 2007, the 150th anniversary of the 1857 killings was observed at the site.

In 2012, the town people formed an 11-member committee of all practising Sikhs, led by trade unionist Amarjit Singh Sarkaria, to honour the martyrs by disinterring their remains from the well. They built a new Gurdwara nearby and began digging of the well on February 28, 2014. Before beginning the work, they tried their best to involve the State and Central Governments, but their efforts were futile as no agency, including the Archaeological Survey of India showed interest. Within three days of digging, nearly hundred human skulls, teeth and bones were exhumed. Hundreds of volunteers took part in the digging and thousands gathered to watch. Medals, jewellery and coins were also retrieved.

The managing committee renamed Kalian Wala Khuh as Shaheedan Wala Khuh (Martyr’s Well) and appealed to the Governments of Punjab and India to give them the vacant land nearby, under the control of the army, for the cremation.

Facilitation and Food

India is receiving a lot of flak for its stance at the just-concluded meeting of the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) General Council in Geneva with epithets such as “deal-breaker” being hurled at it. The country is being accused of sabotaging the first real agreement forged by the trade body in 19 years on trade facilitation with its rigid stance on the issue of food subsidy. An agreement on trade facilitation (TFA), which is aimed at easing customs rules and simplifying procedures, was reached at the 9th Ministerial Round in Bali in December last year after the developed world agreed to find a permanent solution to the contentious issue of stockpiling of food grains by the developing countries by 2017. The Bali Declaration also provided for a “peace clause” whereby countries such as India could continue with their food subsidy programmes until then. India, which supports the TFA, has questioned the current limit of “trade distorting” subsidy which is 10 per cent of the value of food grains output in a year with the base year for prices set at 1986-88. Its position is that the limit does not account for inflation and currency depreciation and the base year needs to be reset to a later period. This is a fair argument as it concerns the critical issue of food security for a country that is home to a quarter of the world’s hungry.

The passage of the Food Security Act means that the subsidy bill will bloat in the coming years and the country cannot afford to be constricted by limits that are based on flawed calculations. Politically speaking, no government can afford to be seen as compromising either the interests of the 270 million people who live below the poverty line or its farmers, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi is also obviously conscious that he will be facing elections in two crucial States in the next few months. The main grouse India has is that there has been little forward movement on discussing the issue since the Bali meeting even as much vigour has been exhibited in finalising the TFA. India’s statement at Geneva clearly highlights that despite repeated requests, discussions on public stockholding of food grains never started. The strategy to use the TFA as a lever to get an agreement on the food subsidy issue was probably born out of the assessment that it would be difficult to get the developed world back to the negotiating table once the TFA was signed. Clearly, both sides are guilty of brinkmanship. Yet, all is not lost. India has signalled that it is willing to return to the table and has suggested a permanent “peace clause” until a final understanding on subsidy is reached. Extending the TFA deadline by another six months will not cause harm, especially if it leads to a final agreement on all issues.

Rape and Reality

The gulf between statistics and substance is not easily bridged. The number of rape cases registered in the country may conceal the reality in two significant ways. First, only a small proportion of the rapes are reported at all. Secondly, a significant number of rape cases relate to consensual sex but have been criminalised by circumstances. The Hindu’s six-month investigation into cases of sexual assault in Delhi has revealed that four of ten cases arose out of complaints by parents of girls who had eloped with boys. Another 25 per cent involved breaches of promise by men that they would marry their partners. And rape as it is conventionally understood, either by strangers or those known to victims in their family or neighbourhood, was seen only in 162 out of 583 cases registered in Delhi in 2013. Such cases resulted in a higher rate of conviction. The association of rape in the popular imagination with predators lurking in dark lanes to prey on vulnerable women has led to a general belief that better policing and more stringent laws will be the solution. While it is entirely appropriate that women’s safety is given high priority, it is equally important to identify the strands of patriarchy discernible in the resort to complaints of rape at the instance of parents who disapprove of relationships, especially if these are inter-caste or inter-religious. If denial of freedom of choice to women in love and marriage is one issue, the disavowal of women’s agency is another.

Accounts gathered from complainants, lawyers and judges reveal that the protestations of women that they had consented to the act or eloped with the accused are disregarded so that provisions relating to statutory rape and abduction can be invoked to appease angry parents. Conviction is indeed inevitable if the girls involved are below the statutory age of consent. While some sympathetic judges used to exercise their discretion to hand down mild sentences, the much-strengthened penal law applicable since last year has made longer prison terms inevitable for statutory rape. This places a question mark on the wisdom of recent legislation raising the age of consent from 16 to 18, thereby criminalising teenage sexual activity. There is no balancing provision to distinguish sexual abuse of a minor, which ought to be dealt with sternly, from consensual sex between couples of a proximate age group. While making the country safer for women, society must move away from the inherent patriarchy behind the phenomenon. That means greater inter-generational dialogue and display of sensitivity by police officers and judges. Scripted FIRs, mechanical resort to rape provisions and pressure on women to disown relationships are not the way.

Making Judiciary more Transparent

The question of judicial appointments has reached centre stage. The new government has started a process of consultation in relation to two Bills — the Constitution Amendment Bill and the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill. The bills were an attempt by the previous government to take over judicial appointments. First, the composition of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) can be modified by Parliament by ordinary law. Second, the independence and impartiality of the proposed JAC will be undermined by the JAC Secretariat being made a department of government. Third, the expenses and salaries, etc of the JAC would not be charged to the Consolidated Fund of India and will be dependent on budgetary control by the Executive.

The Supreme Court and the High courts have their independent registries, where appointments are made by or at the direction of Chief Justices (Article 146 and Article 229 respectively), ensuring total freedom from political interference and political domination.

Collegium System

There is a broad perception among most stakeholders that the present collegium system has not performed well and needs radical change. The worrying concerns relate to: appointment of unsuitable candidates and selection based on favouritism and nepotism, influential connections and personal likes and dislikes. There appears to be a consensus that the composition of the proposed JAC should be entrenched in the Constitution and cast in stone and that the pre-1993 position and the primacy of the Executive should not be restored — a view shared by two Ministers involved in the recent consultation process.

The debate raises many important questions — whether the JAC should be a permanent body with permanent members and a fixed tenure, rather than one with ex officio holders of judicial office who are all birds of passage with a limited tenure; whether the convention that the senior-most Supreme Court Judge be appointed Chief Justice of India (CJI) should be disregarded; whether the judiciary should have a dominant voice, and whether there should be a veto for dissenting members against the judicial members.

The two Bills being debated do not address the issue of a lack of transparency in the appointment procedure and of non-disclosure of reasons for selection. The focus of this article is only on openness and transparency in the appointment procedure and on the necessity of providing relevant principles and guidelines in the Constitutional Amendment Bill. All democracies are swiftly moving toward an open government and a citizen’s right to know — an international trend increasingly being supported by judicial decisions.

The principle of open justice and public trial is essential for the fair administration of justice. In the celebrated case of Scott v. Scott, observations by the 19th century philosopher Jeremy Bentham were quoted: “In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial.” and “The security of securities is publicity.”
Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee, during the controversy regarding the impeachment of Justice V. Ramaswami, stated: “… The Supreme Court must uphold the rule of law. It is, therefore, necessary that those who uphold the rule of law must live by law and Judges must, therefore, be obliged to live according to law ….”. Why should this salutary principle not apply to the process of judicial appointments? “In camera” trials are ordered where the parties and witnesses require protection or a fair trial is prejudiced. In the functioning of the JAC or any other machinery for judicial appointments, no litigating parties are involved and the potential candidates who voluntarily participate must agree to an open and transparent process. The present secretive process followed by the collegium excludes public scrutiny, violates the citizen’s right to know and leads to diminishing respect for the judiciary.

The observations in the First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta vs. Union Of India), which have not been overruled at this point, support the concept of openness. Bhagwati J. — with whom five judges agreed — while overruling the claim of privilege for non-disclosure of communications relating to appointments and transfers of judges, observed: “The citizens’ right to know the facts, the true facts, about the administration of the country is thus one of the pillars of a democratic State. And that is why the demand for openness in the government is increasingly growing in different parts of the world.”

To ensure openness and transparency, the proposed constitutional amendment must embody some key principles and core concepts for guidance and implementation by the JAC. These would include: transparent criteria for eligibility as well as for shortlisting and selection (like age, standing, income, etc); a complete and periodically updated database of potential candidates that includes their qualification, performance, general reputation, etc and which is accessible to the public; applications to be invited by nomination/advertisement; consultation with members of the Bar and Bar organisations; inputs sought from the public with regard to shortlisted candidates; absolute immunity to citizens, while giving their inputs in a confidential manner, from laws of contempt and defamation; reasons for selection to be recorded and disclosed when required, and, most importantly, a complete record of video/audio of JAC deliberations.

For India, a Mixed Bag

The just-concluded Commonwealth Games in Glasgow featured a few ‘highs’ for India, but unfortunately it also marked some new ‘lows’ for the country. While the gold medal-winning feats of discus thrower Vikas Gowda and badminton player Parupalli Kashyap signalled breakthroughs in these events after several decades, the news that broke on the concluding day, of two Indian officials being arrested, was disgusting and deplorable. From an overall perspective, India slumped, not unexpectedly, to the fifth place in the medals tally from its second spot in the New Delhi Games though there were handsome contributions from the shooters, wrestlers and weightlifters. Four years ago, even as our athletes punched above their level to post a record tally of 101 medals, the sports administrators had faced corruption charges that startled the country. Today, following the modest success by the Indian contingent, the sports administrators are once again the butt of ridicule. There is a need for the Union Government to enforce discipline among sports administrators, and for the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) to view the alleged criminal conduct of its secretary-general seriously. The process of reforms in the IOA, enforced by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) last year, with backing from the Union Government, could be frittered away by misconduct of officials.

England, following its success in the 2012 London Olympics, predictably displaced Australia from its perch at the top of the medals tally gathering 174 medals in all, 58 of them gold. Australia, which had come third in 1986 and topped since then, had only 49 gold out of a total of 137. Canada and Scotland came third and fourth. Obviously, the ‘home advantage’ that saw India perform beyond expectations in the New Delhi Games was in Glasgow lost to the contingent. Pertinently, some of the shooting and wrestling events in which India dominated in Delhi were scrapped, not to speak of the exclusion of archery and tennis from the programme, accounting for 16 of India’s gold collection in 2010. Still it was disappointing to note that no gold medal accrued for India from boxing this time and the haul in shooting was reduced. The three medallists apart, our track and field athletes fared poorly. The total gold for India this time, at 15, was the poorest since 1998 when it was seven. It was 38 in Delhi, 22 in 2006 and 30 in 2002. The preparations might have suffered a little this year for want of adequate resources and because of delayed planning. Liberal funding for foreign exposure, strict adherence to selection standards and a sense of discipline and commitment among athletes, coaches and administrators might help India fare better in the Incheon Asian Games next month.

Courtesy: Various News Papers

For Full Article Join Online Coaching

<< Go Back To Magazine Articles Main Page

The Gist- Hard & Soft Copy
Magazine
Civil Services EXAM
Civil Services Preliminary
Civil Services Mains
UPSC