Industrialist Rajiv Bajaj takes potshot at Modi govt for turning ‘Made in India’ into ‘Mad in India’

February 17, 2017

Peeved at hurdles being faced by his company to launch its quadri-cycle in India, industrialist Rajiv Bajaj has warned that stifling of innovation by regulatory agencies will turn ‘Made in India’ into ‘Mad in India.’

Taking potshots at the Centre’s flagship manufacturing initiative, Bajaj said, “If your innovation in the country depends on the Government approval or the judicial process, it will not be a case of ‘Made in India’, but ‘Mad in India’. After five years, we are still waiting for permission to sell our four-wheeler in the country.”

The Managing Director of Bajaj Auto was addressing a gathering of IT industry executives. Stating the quadri-cycle is being sold across countries in Europe, Asia and Latin America, Bajaj wondered why a vehicle which is cleaner, fuel-efficient, safer and whose benefits are as “obvious as daylight”, is facing troubles.

“This is the only country that has not given us permission to sell this vehicles. Because for some reason it thinks if four-wheeler is worse, let people continue on three-wheeler,” Bajaj was quoted by PTI.

It can be noted the Pune-based auto major, the largest three-wheeler maker in the world, has faced multiple hurdles in launching the ambitious vehicle in the country. Meanwhile, Bajaj said that his company was “anti-car”, and sought to dismiss notions regarding two-wheelers being dangerous, saying it is reckless driving which makes two- wheeler riders most vulnerable.

“We feel people should either walk, cycle or use a two-wheeler. Cars are too big, too fast. they pollute, they congest and kill all of us on two-wheelers. People say two-wheelers are dangerous, My submission is two-wheelers are dangerous only when hit by a car.”
Bajaj announced his company was working on a new solution for urban mobility on the last mile connectivity which is safer and cleaner than the available alternatives, but declined to divulge additional details on the same.

He rubbished suggestions of getting back into manufacturing scooters, saying the company does not look it as an extension of manufacturing motorcycles and will continue to focus on its core strength.

“Media and analysts call it de-risking. It is not, it is gambling! this is playing darts, distraction and fragmentation of resources. You must be like (Mahabharat hero) Arjun, see eye of the bird and go for it,” he said, adding Bajaj Auto wants to increase its 10 per cent market share of global motorcycle sales.

(With inputs from PTI copy)

Triple talaq, nikaah halala and polygamy issues to be decided by Constitutional bench: SC

February 17, 2017

“The issues are very important. These issues cannot be scuttled.”

A 3-judge bench headed by chief justice JS Khehar on Thursday decided to move the batch of petitions filed by several Muslim women and supported by a number of Muslim women’s organisations relating to the impugned practice of triple talaq, nikaah halala and polygamy among Muslims to a 5-judge Constitutional bench.

Responding to the four legal issues framed by the Union government, the bench ruled that since they involve Constitutional issues they should be decided by a larger bench with.

“The issues are very important. These issues cannot be scuttled,” the judges observed. The questions for consideration of the constitution bench would be decided on March 30. The bench made it clear to the parties concerned that the apex court would not deal with the factual aspects of the particular case and would rather decide the constitutional issue.

In its submission to the court, the Centre has called for an authoritative ruling on whether personal laws covered under freedom of religion would be circumscribed by the citizen’s fundamental right to equality and the right to life and liberty.

The constitution bench is also expected to examine the question of whether the practices of triple talaq, nikaah halala and polygamy are “integral” to and part of the “essential practices” in Islam.

The Centre has place four questions before the apex court and urged a decisive ruling on the same:

Whether the practices of triple talaq (instant divorce), nikaah halala and polygamy are protected under Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India? [Article 25(1) deals with the right to freedom of religion. Nikah halala means a man cannot remarry a woman after triple talaq unless she has already consummated her marriage with another man and then her new husband dies or divorces her].
Whether Article 25(1) is subject to part III of the Constitution and in particular Articles 14 and 21? [Article 14 ensures right to equality while Article 21 guarantees right to life and liberty]
Whether personal law is law under Article 13 of the Constitution? [Article 13 stipulates that all laws must conform to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution].
Whether the impugned practices of triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) nikaah halala and polygamy are compatible with India’s obligations under international treaties and covenants to which India is a signatory?

The bench asked the parties concerned to file their respective written submissions, running not beyond 15 pages, by the next date of hearing, besides the common paper book of case laws to be relied upon by them during the hearing to avoid duplicity.

As an indicator of the urgency with which the apex court views the issues raised in the clutch of petitions before it, the bench made it clear that it is willing to sit on Saturdays and Sundays to decide on the issue as it was “very important”.

“You (lawyers for parties) sit together and finalise the issues to be deliberated upon by us,” the bench said.

The apex court has also said that the question whether divorce under Muslim Personal Law needed to be supervised by either courts or by a court-supervised institutional arbitration fell under the legislative domain.

It may be recalled that separate petitions filed in the apex court by individual Muslim women in the apex court for declaration of the practices of triple talaq, nikaah halala and polygamy as un-Constitutional and “un-Islamic”, have been backed by a number of Muslim women’s organisations, as also the recently formed forum, Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy (IMSD).

On the other hand, the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board and the Jamiat-e-ulema-e-Hind have intervened to argue that these practices are part of the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Also Read

Indian Muslim Women – Caught between Misogynists and Hypocrites: Sanober Umar

पर्सनल लॉ बोर्ड संविधान से ऊपर नहीं, ‘तीन तलाक’ पर इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट की टिप्पणी

How the Degrading-to-Women 'Halala Marriage' Practice Does Violence to the Quranic Injunction

Brave NBC journalist challenges Trump on ‘lies,’ US president left embarrassed

February 17, 2017

There’s nothing unusual about the US president Donald Trump courting controversy because of his loose talk and provocative comments. His divisive right-wing politics have often earned him the ire of the Americans, who are now lamenting their compatriots’ choice for Trump as the country’s new president.

Trump has also been notorious for what his critics say is ‘self obsession’ and his constant attempts to belittle his opponents.

Undeterred by humiliation caused due to his repeated gaffes in the past, Trump has once again made a false claim. But this time, he was instantly corrected by a journalist working for the NBC.

Journalist Peter Alexander reminded Trump during a live press conference on Thursday how his claims on securing the most electoral college votes in the history of America since President Ronald Reagan was wholly inaccurate.

Trump had called the press conference to talk about his choice of attorney Alexander Acosta for the role of labour secretary, but he began to make tall claims about his victory margin during the conversation.

He said, “I put it out before the American people. I got 306 electoral college votes because people came out and voted like they’ve never seen before. So that’s the way it goes. I guess it’s the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan.”

However, barely moments later, an intrepid Alexander intervened and abruptly told Trump, “Very simple you said today that you had the biggest electoral margin since Ronald Reagan, with 304, 306 electoral votes. The fact that President Obama got 365..”

A visibly embarrassed Trump interjected and said that he was talking about Republican presidents.

But the reporter was determined to call out Trump’s bluff. He said that George HW Bush (a Republican) too had got 426 electoral college votes.

He asked, “Why should Americans trust you when you accuse the information they receive as being fake when you are providing information that is fake?”

The reporter was hinting at Trump’s accusation against certain US media outlets, who he had alleged were busy publishing and broadcasting fake news.

Faced with an unending humiliation, Trump blamed his aides for the wrong information when he said, “Well no I was given that information. I don’t know, I was just given that.”

Trump has become hugely popular among the right-wing Hindutva brigade in India because of his anti-Muslim rants. His critics in India have often compared him with Prime Minister Narendra Modi because of perceived similarity in many behavioural patterns and personality traits.

But, what’s striking here is that in India Modi has never held a press conference by making himself available for questions from journalists. Trump, despite all his gaffes and controversial statements, continues to expose himself for public scrutiny.

Another highlight of Thursday’s press conference was that while in America, journalists continue to ask tough questions to their president, an overwhelming majority of their counterparts in India have now mortgaged their freedom to the ruling party for the want of uninterrupted flow of government ad revenue and other sources of lucrative income particularly during elections.

Not so long ago, a leading Hindi newspaper, Jagran, was found guilty of flouting election guidelines in favour of the Modi’s party prompting the law enforcing agencies to arrest the group’s online editor.

There’s little doubt that if an Indian journalist had challenged Modi in a similar fashion, the reporter in question would have been summarily shown the door as most appointments in Indian media, these days, are allegedly carried out by the ruling party.

Both Modi and his party president, Amit Shah, have been accused of indulging in factual inaccuracies on public platforms, but seldom has anyone dared to correct them.

Courtesy: Janta Ka Reporter

Liberal supporters of Israel slam Trump’s ‘terrifying’ comments– some saying Jews need to keep a majority

February 17, 2017

In the hours since President Trump said he was agnostic about whether Israel and Palestine should be two states or one, many supporters of Israel have taken to the airwaves to cite the danger that a one-state outcome would pose to Israel’s Jewish majority. These folks also said that one-state would bring violence; but the emphasis was the threat to Israel’s status as a Jewish state.

Rabbi Rick Jacobs of URJ photo by Jewish Federations of North America

Last night on MSNBC, for instance, Jeremy Ben-Ami, the head of the liberal Zionist group J Street, said that Israel cannot be both democratic and Jewish if it is one state; and all its military leaders say so. In the same episode, Chris Matthews spoke of one state in alarmist terms, describing the bomb that Israel faces in Palestinian population numbers in a one-state scenario. He said the number of Jews between the river and the sea is only slightly more than the number of Palestinians, so Palestinians would soon outnumber Jews in a combined state.

Today Senator Ben Cardin, who identifies as an ardent Zionist, expressed the same concern at a hearing. “I don’t see how Israel can remain Jewish and democratic” with a one-state outcome, he said. “The demographics are unambiguous in this regard.”

The Union for Reform Judaism also saw Trump’s statement “darkly,” saying that it spells the end of a Jewish, democratic Israel. Rabbi Rick Jacobs:

The question is: can Israelis and Palestinians live with it in a way that allows for a Jewish, democratic State of Israel and realization of the legitimate rights and aspirations of the Palestinians. And the answer to that question remains “no.” Only a two-state solution can achieve the goals of the Israelis and Palestinians.
That is why we see President Trump’s abdication of the longtime, bipartisan support for a two-state solution so darkly. It is potentially devastating to the prospects for peace and Israel’s Jewish, democratic future.

Earl Blumenauer is a Congressman from Oregon, supported by J Street. He writes:

Astounding. Just when we thought it couldn’t get worse or more chaotic, Trump considers one-state solution–which is no solution at all.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street, retweeted that, saying:

One state is the problem not the solution. For those like @repblumenauer who want Israel to be democratic natl home of the Jewish people.

J Street’s statement on the Trump comments— “One State is the Problem, Not the Solution”– emphasized the likelihood of violence, though it also cited the state’s Jewish identity:

To be clear, there is no one-state configuration that leads to peace. There is no resolution to this conflict without full political rights and independence for both peoples. All so-called “one-state solutions” are recipes for more violence that will ultimately threaten Israel’s identity as a democracy and a Jewish homeland.

NY Rep. Jerrold Nadler emphasized the Jewish democratic angle, along with the violence:

Trump abandoning a 2SS–Jewish & democratic Israel living next to a Palestinian state–leaves Israel less secure & peace much more elusive.

Peace Now’s statement on the “terrifying” press conference also expressed those concerns, Israel’s Jewish future, and violence:

the two leaders are not only depriving Israel of the very possibility of reaching peace but also undermining Israel’s own future as a democracy and a Jewish state. They are delivering a huge victory to extremists on both sides.

In a piece that came out in USA Today anticipating the Trump indifference about one state, Senators Dianne Feinstein (CA) and Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico baldly stressed the population numbers, as the most important issue with one state– even more important than the potential for violence:

Perhaps most importantly, without an independent Palestine by its side, Israel cannot be both a democratic and majority Jewish state. Today, the Jewish people are already a minority between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. There are 6.3 million Jewish Israelis compared to 6.6 million non-Jewish minorities, most of them Palestinian Arabs.

Since the Jewish people are already a minority, a one-state solution cannot be both majority Jewish and democratic. We have not heard a plausible proposal where a one-state solution wouldn’t require a Jewish minority to govern a non-Jewish majority

By contrast, on PBS News Hour last night, Shibley Telhami had a non-hysterical discussion of one state. Telhami spoke of the left’s support for one-state: “not a Jewish state– a democratic state for Arabs and Jews.” And he mentioned the rightwing support for “an apartheid state.” He also said that the one-state idea was appealing to many Palestinians, even if they did not regard it as realistic. Here he cited population numbers: “If they can have a full equal relationship within Israel, of course they would [support it], because ultimately they’re going to be a majority… It is a non starter for Israelis, undoubtedly.”

Two comments: It would be helpful if these speakers addressed the 20 percent of “Israel proper” that is not Jewish. About the same number of Americans are non-Christian; in the U.S. we would find it insupportable if the U.S. made it official policy that it’s a Christian state.

And as to the fear of greater violence in one state, this is surely legitimate. But the problem with emphasizing this fear is that it tends to be very Jewish-centric. What do I mean? Well, there’s one state right now in which violence is dished out regularly to Palestinians, so the real problem in Israel Palestine is not prospective, it’s before our eyes, but that’s never the problem; and the concern that Israel will become an apartheid state amounts to a denial of the reality for Palestinians today, that it is an apartheid state. As to the unstated but looming apprehension that Israel and Palestine will become Algeria, and many Jewish Israelis will flee– only a fool would say that that is not a possible outcome, and a concerning one. But that apprehension cannot justify the tyranny that exists right now, in which the conflict is “managed,” and Palestinians have no rights. The American revolutionaries were rather succinct about the use of violence to achieve their rights.

This article was first published on mondoweiss.net

PM And Amit Shah Wrong On UP Crime Data

February 17, 2017

Uttar Pradesh (UP) has reached “number one” in crime, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on February 5, 2017, repeating the claim five days later. Similarly, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) chief Amit Shah said on February 3, 2017, that states ruled by the BJP have a better law-and-order record than UP.

The crime situation has been a constant refrain in the electoral battle for India’s most populous state, but the facts–garnered from the Centre’s own crime database–did not support the assertions made by Modi and Shah. In 2015 (the year for which latest data are available), we found that, compared to UP, 27 states and union territories (UTs) had a higher rate of rapes, 21 had a higher murder rate, 19 had a higher rate of kidnapping and abduction, 16 had a higher rate of riots and 18 had higher theft rates.

We also found that many BJP-ruled states had higher crime rates than UP.

A caveat: Crime data nationwide are, often, not an accurate reflection of crime because they are compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), a division of the union home ministry, with data sent by the states.

Some crimes, such as rape and assault, could be hidden or not reported, but others that result in a body–such as murder or dowry death–are harder to hide. For instance, Bihar–India’s third-most-populous state, with the country’s poorest people–has a crime rate lower than more prosperous states with fewer people, such as Gujarat, Kerala, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, as IndiaSpend reported in May 2016. We also reported in March 2015 how UP was misrepresenting some crime and health data.

In general, while northern states tend to under-report crime than those in the south, their crime data largely reflect crime trends.

Modi’s claim: UP is “number 1” in crime, with 24 rapes, 21 attempts to rape, 13 murders, 33 kidnappings, 19 riots and 136 thefts every day.

Fact: The crime rate is calculated per 100,000 population, and by that measure, there are many states with higher rates. Even considering the “per day” measure, rapes registered in UP were a third of what Modi claimed while attempts to rape registered were 4.7% of his claim, although figures for murders, kidnappings, riots and thefts in “per-day” terms are correct with regard to 2015 crime statistics.

Crimes registered per 100,000 people is the appropriate measure, not “per day”: Large states are likely to register the highest number of crimes in absolute terms, although most northern states tend to under-report crime, as we said. UP has 216 million people (2015 mid year projected population), more than any other state and more than every country, save four. An accurate measure of crimes is the rate at which they are committed per 100,000 population. This is called the “crime rate”. The NCRB does not use a “per day” measure.

The rape and attempt-to-rape statistics Modi quoted are inflated by three and 21 times, respectively: There were 3,050, 3,467 and 3,025 rapes registered in UP in 2013, 2014 and 2015, according to NCRB data. Translated to “per day” terms, that is eight in 2013, nine in 2014 and eight in 2015. If Modi was using 2015 data, the latest available, he has inflated the actual figure by three times.

Similarly, in 2014 and 2015, attempts to rape registered in UP were 324 and 422, respectively, or about one per day–4.7% of Modi’s claim.

UP’s murder rate was 22nd, among 36 states and UTs in 2015, down from 2014: UP’s murder rate was 22nd in 2015, 19th in 2014, 21st in 2013 and 22nd in 2012. The murder rate (murders per 100,000 population) in UP has fallen from 2.4 in 2012 to 2.2 in 2015, while the national murder rate has been 2.8 in 2012 and 2.6 in 2015. There were 13 states with a population greater than 10 million with a murder rate higher than UP’s in 2015.