Issues affecting Indian interest

Game of Thrones: Another legal battle possible between the Center and the Delhi government.

2020-06-10T15:12:00.000+05:30

Lieutenant Governor of Delhi has overruled the orders of the Delhi government that has restricted COVID-19 treatment in government and private hospitals only to the residents of Delhi.
Earlier the Delhi government had passed a controversial order that resulted COVID-19 treatment facilities in the government and private hospitals in Delhi only to the residents of Delhi.
The Delhi government had justified this decision by citing a lack of capacity for treating outsiders and hence, it was trying to prioritize the residents of Delhi while treating for COVID-19.

But the lieutenant governor, in his capacity as the chairperson of the Delhi disaster management authority, has overruled the decision of the delhi government. He has stated in his order that right to health is integral to 'right to life' that has been recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian constitution and so, this fundamental right can't be restricted on the basis of one's residency.

This order of the lieutenant governor highlights the conflict between the office of the L.G. and the Delhi government over the distribution of powers as far as the administration of the National capital territory (NCT of Delhi) is concerned.
This development also highlights that the Chief Minister of Delhi doesn't share the same powers as that of the chief ministers of other states, because in other states, it is the chief minister who is the chairperson of their Disaster management authority. But in the case of Delhi, the administrator of the NCT region, i.e. the L.G. is the chairperson of the Delhi disaster management authority, and not the chief minister of Delhi.

Why this conflict between the L.G. and the Chief Minister of Delhi

Delhi enjoys a special status by virtue of being the national capital of India. Since it is the national capital, it acts as the seat of power of the central government and it also houses foreign missions and embassies. So in this regard, Delhi enjoys a unique strategic value and ensuring its security is of great concern for the central government. The central government would naturally have the desire to secure the seat of power and it also have an obligation to ensure the security of the foreign missions.

In the national capital, the center would like to utilize land and make allocation for various government offices and as well as for foreign embassies. So for the purpose of security, law and order, and control over land,the central government would desire to have control over 3 state subject, i.e. land, police and public order, which otherwise have been placed under state list of the seventh schedule of the Indian constitution.

So the need of the center to exercise control over the subjects of land, police and public order was fulfilled through the 69th amendment act which introduced article 239AA and article 239AB to the Indian constitution. This article outlines the special status that is given to Delhi. It establishes Delhi as the national capital territory and it has been set up as a union territory with an elected legislative assembly. It also provides that the NCT region would be administered by the office of the L.G., who would be appointed as the administrator by the central government through the office of the president of India.

So essentially, the L.G. of Delhi acts on the advice of the president and the ministry of home affairs (MHA) in order to administer the NCT region and establish the control of the center over these 3 subjects.

But with regard to all the other state subjects, it is the council of ministers who are drawn from the elected legislative assembly, headed by the chief minister, who would exercise the jurisdiction and administrative powers.

But this unique distribution of powers lays the ground for a conflict between the office of the L.G. and the Delhi government. Over the years, the complaint of the chief minister of Delhi and the Delhi government has always been that the central government unnecessarily interferes in the administration of the NCT region by misusing the office of the L.G.

After the series of legal battles between the L.G's office and the Delhi government, the matter was finally settled by the Supreme Court in a historic ruling in 2018. In this case, the SC held that the LG has no discretionary powers of it's own. The SC made it clear that as far as the subjects of land, police and public order are concerned, the LG would be acting as per the directions of the ministry of home affairs, issued through the office of the president of India.

Apart from these 3 excluded subjects, the LG is bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers of the Delhi government.

But despite this ruling of the SC, the power tussle between the office of the LG and the Delhi government has continued in few other areas. For example, in 2019, there was another legal battle between these 2 institutions which had reached the doorsteps of the SC. This dispute was over the powers of the Delhi government to appoint and transfer Delhi government officers and to exercise control over the anti-corruption bureau.

In this ruling the SC drew a boundary between the powers of the LG and the Delhi government and it recognized that the Delhi government had the powers to appoint and transfer officers whereas the LG enjoys jurisdiction over the Anti-corruption bureau.

But still there are other areas and subjects where the conflict keeps coming up and this is one of the reasons why the elected government of Delhi has always been demanding full statehood for the Delhi NCT region.

But the center has taken the opposite stand and it says that the NCT region can't be granted full statehood because it is the national capital of India and by being the national capital, it acquires a strategic value for the center and it would be very essential for the central government to exercise control over at least these 3 subjects as far as the administration of the region is concerned.

So the recent order of the LG overruling the decision of the Delhi government falls under the same category. The LG, as the chairperson of the Delhi disaster management authority, has passed this order but however, this could open up a new legal battle between both these offices.

Whom to blame for the death of pregnant elephant in Kerala?

2020-06-09T07:48:00.001+05:30

News reports of the death of an elephant in the Palakkad district of Kerala reportedly after consuming a pineapple filled with explosives have gone viral and have caused massive outrage across the country. The initial reports had claimed that the elephant was deliberately fed with pineapple which led to greater revulsion and anger across the country.

But according to experts, the elephant most likely might have consumed the pineapple on its own which was meant to be used as a snare to scare away or kill wild boars which caused extensive damage to plantation crops.

Whatever is the mode of events, the death of the pregnant elephant in this tragic manner is highly unfortunate and it highlights the threat posed to India's environment and biodiversity due to increasing incidents of man-animal conflict.

A number of elephants get killed every year in India as a result of such man-animal conflict incidents and this is a direct result of increasing commercial pressure on the habitat of the elephant.
The need to expand our urban areas and agricultural activities at the need to promote industrial and economic activities have ended up destroying sensitive habitat and forests. As a result, for migratory animals such as elephants, their traditional ranges have been occupied and their migratory corridors have been blocked due to human activities.
In fact, it is not just elephants that have been pushed in conflict with humans due to habitat destruction and habitat fragmentation, but even several other high-value species and threatened species face the same threat. As the contact of wild animals with humans increases, it increases the threat faced by animals itself.

Despite the threat posed by habitat destruction and unregulated economic activities to natural ranges and corridors of wild animals, there has been no attempt made by the government to mitigate the impact of economic development and industrialization.

The government has failed to adopt a sign based policy to prevent incidents of man-animal conflicts by adopting measures such as the creation of a soft landscape, the provision of migratory passages especially in and around protected areas while approving new industrial projects and new economic activities.

There is a lack of scientific culture in India which inspires the government's conservation efforts. Environmental policies and regulations of the government have been designed to favor economic development and commercial activities even at the cost of destroying forests and natural habitats of wild animals.
Take for example how even during the lockdown that has been imposed due to the spread of COVID-19 pandemic, the ministry of environment, the national board for wildlife, and the expert appraisal committee manage to clear a number of disruptive projects in protected areas despite these projects being opposed by environmental groups.

Such rampant destruction of natural habitats of the wild animals reduces their ranges and makes the feeding ground inaccessible to them.
This reduction in their natural habitat and the shortage of the food that they face pushes the animals to venture into human habitat areas such as nearby villages, agricultural fields, plantations, etc.

When such incidents of man-animal conflict increases, the cost is borne both by the animals and as well as by the local villagers. For example, the entry of wild elephants and wild boars into agricultural fields and plantations could cause extensive damage to the farmers. The entry of carnivorous animals such as tigers could threaten human lives and cattle in nearby villages.

So, locals who have suffered such losses as a result of man-animal conflict, they tend to hold a grudge against animals and to prevent the reoccurrence of such incidents, they tend to use a number of inhuman and violent techniques to keep the animals away.
Every year, hundreds of hundreds of elephants, tigers, leopards, and other high-value species and threatened species are killed across the country as a result of such preventive techniques.

Suggestions to reduce such incidents of man-animal conflicts

1.) Revisit the recommendations of the 'Madhav Gadgil Committee'.

Ministry of environment and forests had set up the western ghats ecology expert panel under the chairmanship of Madhav Gadgil. This committee had submitted its recommendations in 2011 and in order to conserve the ecology and the biodiversity of western ghats, the Madhav Gadgil committee had recommended the zonification of the entire stretch of the western ghats into 3 sensitive Eco-zones and inside each zone, human activities were supposed to be strictly regulated with varying degrees of enforcement. These restrictions and regulations would apply for industrial activities, mining activities, construction activities, agriculture, etc.

But all the state governments that are part of the western ghats had opposed the recommendations of the Madhav Gadgil Committee due to pressure from the industry and as well as from the local villages.

2.) The government should provide timely and adequate compensation to the victims of man-animal conflict incidents.

When the victims who have suffered losses due to man-animal conflicts, if they are compensated adequately and if they are compensated in time, it will reduce the chances of them adopting such inhuman violent methods to keep the animals away.

It is this culture of commercial exploitation of our forests and our natural resources that have led to the death of this elephant in Kerala and it could change only if we adopt a cultural shift towards science-based conservation.

How the failure of Indian Parliament to meet during the lockdown affected the accountability in the country.

2020-06-05T22:49:00.000+05:30

As the COVID-19 pandemic spread, governments around the world responded by imposing a lockdown in order to enforce social distancing norms. Through these lockdowns, the Government restricted to various fundamental rights such as right to movement, right to assemble, etc. The government has also spent large sums of money as a part of the pandemic response.
Yes, we know that governments are dealing with an unprecedented crisis but this doesn't mean that the government shouldn't be held accountable during the pandemic.

In a parliamentary democracy, it is the primary responsibility of the parliament to hold the executive, i.e. the government, accountable for its actions.
To understand the importance of parliament in holding the government accountable, let's look at the statement made by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the constituent assembly while making a case for parliamentary democracy as opposed to a presidential democracy. He agreed that a presidential setup would provide for more stability, but on the other hand, a parliamentary democracy would be the best-suited model especially for a large country to hold the executive accountable for its acts or omissions and commissions.

Dr. Ambedkar and the constituent assembly favored accountability over stability while establishing India as a parliamentary democracy. Thus like any other parliamentary democracy, the Indian parliament was designed to hold the executive accountable.

During the pandemic, parliaments around the world have met virtually through video conferencing.
For example, the Canadian parliament met during the lockdown and questioned its government response to the pandemic.

Even in countries that have been badly affected by the COVID pandemic such as Britain, Italy, Brazil and France, the respective parliaments have met and have held their government accountable.

But the parliament of the world's largest democracy is yet to meet and hold the Modi government accountable for its pandemic response. Over the last 2.5-3 months, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha and the parliamentary standing committees have failed to meet and as a result they have failed to question the government as to on what basis, the lockdown was imposed and extended across the country. The parliament has not been able to question as to how the Disaster management act was used to give the central government complete powers over the states . How the Disaster management act which doesn't have any pandemic specific provisions has been used to deal with COVID-19 pandemic.

If the Indian parliament and the parliamentary committees had met through video conferencing, just like other parliaments of the world, then probably, a pandemic specific legislation could have been introduced as it has been done in few other countries. The government has not been held accountable for the expenditure that it has incurred as a part of the pandemic response. The government hasn't been questioned over the suspension of rights such as the right to movement, right to assemble, etc. The parliament has failed to highlight the privacy concerns of the Aarogya Setu application and it has failed to hold the government accountable for its failure in the migrant crisis.

If the parliament and the standing committees had met, the could have even questioned the government over instances of police brutality that were reported across the country during the lockdown.

This is just an elaboration as to how the inability of the parliament to function during the lockdown had affected accountability in the country.

The reason why the parliament and the parliamentary committees have not met is that the presiding officers of the parliament, i.e. the speaker of the Lok Sabha and the chairman of the Rajya Sabha and the government, they have failed to summon the parliament and the presiding officers have refused to permit the parliamentary committees to meet through video conferencing.
Under article 85 of the Indian constitution, the government through the President can summon the parliament to meet at such a time and place as he thinks. So, in the interest of upholding accountability, the government and the president could have summoned the parliament at a suitable place where social distancing norms could have been enforced.
Then with regard to parliamentary standing committees, members of opposition political parties have been requesting the presiding officers to allow them to meet through video conferencing but the presiding officers have denied such permission by stating the rules of procedure of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.

The rules of procedure of the house state that parliamentary committees can meet only within the premises of the parliament, but the very same rules also provide for an exception and it allows the presiding officers to let the parliamentary standing committees meet outside the parliament as well.
The arguments of the members of the opposition parties are that by making use of the exceptional provisions and the rules, parliamentary standing committees could have been allowed to meet through video conferencing. But the permission was denied by the presiding officers on the grounds that such video conferencing could compromise the confidentiality of the meetings of the parliamentary committees.

But there is no point in insisting on confidentiality as far as the meetings of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha are concerned because the meetings of these 2 houses are already telecasted live on the TV. Yes, the business of the standing committees has to be kept confidential and secret, but for this, the government and the parliament could have come up with appropriate IT security solutions in order to secure these video conferences.

It is an irony that the world's largest democracy which labels itself as a hub for IT has not been able to provide a platform for its parliamentary committees to meet.

India-China standoff in Ladakh. What to expect?

2020-06-04T11:59:00.001+05:30

For the first time, India's defence minister has publicly acknowledged that China has indeed made significant troop deployment across the LAC and India and China have locked in a border stand-off across multiple locations including Pangong Tso lake, the Galwan river valley, Debsang, hotspring areas in ladakh and at the Nathu La sector in Sikkim.

In response to this troop buildup of China, India has mobilized a large contingent of troops and equipment to the forward areas.

Currently, according to reports, thousands of Chinese troops have occupied few kilometers of Indian territory at the Galwan river valley, at Pangong Tso and at Depsang. This threatens to cut off the access of Indian troops to areas in Aksai Chin and other strategic areas including the Karakoram pass. India has claimed that it was chi which violated the sanctity of the LAC and it was Chinese troops which carried out the incursion and they are the ones who is currently occupying Indian territory.

China has claimed that it was Indian troops who violated the LAC and it goes on to show that most of the disputes between India and China occur because of different perception with regard to the demarcation of the LAC. But strategic experts also believe that China has deliberately carried out these incursions this time around as a response to India's increased military and logistical capabilities along the LAC over the last 10 years.

After having been learnt its lesson during the 1962war and the 2013 incursion, India has scaled up its deployment of troops and equipment especially in and around the Depsang region. Post 2014, India has deployed sufficient no. of T-72 tanks and more no. of troops are deployed constantly on rotational basis in order to acclimatize them to high altitude warfare in the Himalayan region.

Despang region has seen many such conflicts and standoff between India and China in the past. This is because the Depsang region is a plain area as compared to the hilly terrain that is present around it and led an opening between 2 nations. It enables the easier movement of light armoured vehicles which can help in easy mobilization of troops and equipment. China has capitalized it and deployed large numbers of troops and heavier equipment by using light armoured vehicles. These development has got india extremely worried.

Whenever India and China are headed towards such a border confrontation, the most commonly asked question is whether both the countries are headed towards a conflict, especially the media in both the countries, they try to whip up patriotic and nationalistic sentiments by claiming that a war between India and China is imminent. But the chances of a full blown war between the 2 Asian powerhouse is highly unlikely because their are sufficient conflict resolution mechanism that have been put in place.

India's former national security adviser, Shiv Shankar Menon (also served as special representative for India-China boundary talks from 2010-2014) has suggested some important measures that the Indian government can use to negotiate with the Chinese government. He recalled his experience of dealing with the Chinese incursion in ladakh sector in 2013.

Under the special representative mechanism, by virtue of his position as the NSA, Shiv Shankar Menon had personally dealt with Depsang incident and in his popular book "Choices", he's outlined how the GOI dealt with the 2013 incursion. He says that India had adopted a 2 pronged strategy in order to solve border conflict. As a part of this strategy, India had applied a combination of diplomatic as well as political pressure in order to push back China from the areas it had occupied around Depsang. During that tense period, Indian diplomats such as Shiv Shankar Menon, the then NSA and India's current Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar, who was then India's ambassador to China, they made it clear to Chinese side that Chinese troops need to move back from the standoff point and they also verified the end point to which the Chinese troops had to withdraw in order to avoid any repeat incursions. Along with such diplomatic pressure, political pressure was exerted by GOI by threatening to call off the upcoming visit of Chinese premier to India. A combination of diplomatic and political pressure along with strict adherence to establish agreements and protocols helped India and China to resolve the standoff in 2013.

5 such established agreements in particular are:

1.) Agreement on maintenance of peace and tranquility along the LAC signed in 1993.

2.) Agreement on confidence building measures in a military field along the LAC signed in 1996.

3.) Agreement which provided for the protocol for implementing these confidence building measures between 2 militaries.

4.) Agreement which provided for a working mechanism for promoting consultation and coordination between the 2 countries on border affairs.

5.) Border defense cooperation agreement signed in 2013 has inbuilt de-escalation mechanism in order to prevent a border standoff from escalating into a conflict.

As per established de-escalation protocols,talks have been held at the local commander levels. But these talks at the local levels have failed to yield any results and hence negotiations are going on between senior military commanders of both the sides and a very important dialogue is stated to be held on the June 6th between India and China. Along with this, the political leadership of both the countries have activated their diplomatic channels in order to workout a peaceful resolution to the standoff.

Shiv Shankar Menon has said that their are 3 essential steps to any successful conflict resolution and these are:

1.) Both the government need to take down their rhetoric against each other and they need to stay away from from making any controversial public statement against each other.

It is appreciable that the Modi government hasn't made any such controversial statements in the public during the current standoff. Even China, for the time being, has tried to keep down its public rhetoric and this creates the right platform for both the government to negotiate away from unnecessary attention of media and the public.

2.) It is essential to show strength to the adversary in order to make them realize that we do have the capabilities to defend ourselves and deter an attack and such display of strength has a deterrence value because once the defensive capabilities are made known to the adversary, it prevents the adversary from escalating the conflict further and it pushes them towards the negotiating table.

So, since the display of strength has a deterrence value, it possibly explains the troop buildup from both the sides. It doesn't mean that a troop buildup necessarily mean a preparation towards war. Instead, it is basically a diplomatic strategy being adopted by both the sides.

3.) Well designed diplomatic negotiation will always provide a way out for the adversary. During diplomatic negotiations, if an adversary feels that he has been pushed into a corner and isolated, that is when he is more likely to escalate the crisis which could significantly increase the chances of a conflict.

Diplomatic negotiations should always work towards providing an honourable exit to both the players so that it appeals to their respective domestic audiences which reduces their need to escalate the conflict further.