The Government of India on March 24, 2020, announced a country wide 21-day lockdown. A total of 4 hours was awarded to those in Indian territory to prepare for the lockdown that would strictly remain enforced for three weeks. Prime Minister in his addressed called this a Mahabharata like war, which will be won in 21 days.  Immediately people rushed to stock groceries, masks, sanitizers, etc. 

Amongst other vulnerable groups, the government totally forgot to account 50 Million migrant labourers spread all over India, who rely on daily wages for their meal. With no work, scanty or no savings, and no place to stay (as majority of these workers live either at construction sites or at factories where they work), thousands of migrant labourers started their journey back to their villages on foot. The long serpentine trail of human beings, of all age, religion, region, united by their hopelessness and poverty, juxtaposed the 1947 post partition migration crisis. The visible humanitarian crisis forced the government to act, but the help arrived too late and too little. 

At the time of writing this article, we are amidst the 3^rd Phase of Lockdown, that is scheduled to conclude on 17^th May, and the government has allowed the stranded migrants, stranded students, tourists, etc. to return back to their homes, via government facilitated transport. This decision should have been taken much before announcing the first Lockdown, but albeit late, the decision deserves appreciation.

After the lockdown was announced, a humanitarian crisis unfolded, forcing people into starvation, joblessness, poverty, destitution, depression, etc. This is apart from the health infrastructural crisis where even doctors were not provided with Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs), but this article will stick to highlighting the issues that concern the economy. In my opinion, government’s economic response against COVID-19 is deeply inadequate and is akin to shooting at one’s own foot.

Economists all over the world are advocating the urgent need for a suitable stimulus package to revive the economy. The COVID-19 catastrophe is bound to be at least as bad as 2008 global financial crisis, if not worse. India’s current healthcare expenditure is below 1.5% of GDP, and the sector is marred with a paucity of Doctors, Primary Health Care Centres, Superspeciality Hospitals, Ventilators, Lab Technicians, Pharmacists, medical equipments etc.
 

What is the situation? 

As per the CMIE data, India’s unemployment rate has surged to 27.11% for the week ended May 3 from the level of 6.74% in the week ended March 15. The largest hit in employment is witnessed in unorganized sector and in MSMEs. Several Economists have predicted that India’s GDP Growth will be in negative territory. There is a strong link between disability, loss of employment and impoverishment. Disabilities today have quadrupled, because of destruction of long duration employment and it is now translating into rising poverty. 

India desperately needs an all-encompassing, well-structured and inclusive stimulus package. United States has announced a package of 10% of its GDP, and, close home, few Asian countries have announced a package of up to 15% of their GDP. While India certainly cannot risk spending in double digits for its stimulus package (because of inflationary risks), but a meagre Rs.1.76 Lakh Crore package, majority of which is repackaged, is woefully inadequate.
 

What the Government must do? 

A meticulous fiscal stimulus plan is needed to boost consumption demand, to cushion the shock and to help the economy revive. The fiscal package must aggressively target those in informal sector and MSMEs. MSMEs must be protected by providing it with a moratorium on loans for 3 months along with interest waiver. This will help the Bank’s balance sheet and the MSMEs will also stay afloat.

The fiscal package must include:

a)     A direct and unconditional cash transfer of Rs. 2000 per month for 3 months, to the bottom 60% of Indian population. This will create the demand in the economy, which is rapidly shrinking.

b)     RBI must devise a framework where there is no coercive action on bankers when they lend loans that later become NPAs. A balanced regulation is utmost required to unclog the impending liquidity squeeze in the financial system. Mere rate adjustments will not help. Every sector of the economy is in a dire need of credit.

c)     All State governments must immediately issue temporary Ration Cards to the bottom 40% of India’s population, and the Union government must order FCI to offload the grains and distribute it amongst the poor. The Current bumper Rabi harvest will refill the FCI godowns. 

d)     The Central government must reduce excise duties on Petrol (by Rs.20 per litre) and on Diesel (by Rs.25 per litre) and pass on the benefits of lower prices of Crude to the consumers ($23.86 a barrel currently).

e)     The government needs to incentivize the external sector of trade and commerce.

Is it fiscally doable? 

Yes, the government will have to delay certain gratifications to do that. The money can be made available if we reallocate some of the budgeted capital expenditure and rationalize expenses. We can certainly defer Central Vista Project and save Rs.20,000 Crore outright and we must stop all less important government advertisements. Beautification projects, statue building etc. must be deferred indefinitely. The Oil bonanza is helping the government have a huge windfall gain for the past six years. The Government has already suspended MPLADS, Dearness Allowances; now, it must bring in a COVID Solidarity tax and shall raise funds by issuing bonds to the public. If nothing, it can always print money. We also don’t have to worry much about the inflationary pressure right now because we have sufficient food stock, a stable foreign exchange and low fuel price. 

The government must suit up and announce a fiscal stimulus to the tune of 5-8% of GDP quickly. We have lost a lot of time already, and, we cannot afford being frugal or lackadaisical. Desperate times require desperate solutions. We need to break free from textbook fiscal norms and go beyond the standard practice.

The post India needs a stimulus package to fight the COVID-19 Economic battle appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) is being vaguely labelled as Anti-Muslim. Though it is certainly designed to exclude and disparage Muslims to become lesser rights-holders in India, the Act’s design reflects a larger nefarious social agenda.

In 2014, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians and Buddhists from Pakistan were given Long Term Visas (LTVs) for stay in India. In 2015, the notification by Ministry of Home Affairs made changes in Passport (Entry into India) Amendment Rules, 2015, the facility for LTVs were extended to people from Bangladesh and Pakistan who would now come to India due to religious persecution or due to fear of religious persecution. The order extended the facility to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians. Through another notification Dated 18^th July 2016, Afghanistan was also added as an eligible country. All this was made as the ground for the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, which was brought during first tenure of Narendra Modi as PM, but was successfully passed in the Parliament during the second term and was published into The Gazette on 12^th December 2019.

What is interesting to note is that the word “Persecuted” is completely missing from the Act. Having missed the word “Persecuted” is counter-intuitive to the “publicly declared” object of having the Act itself. Also, through the Act, Citizenship will only be granted to those people who have arrived in India before 31^st December 2014, and those who come after, shall be granted the LTVs under the rules that I have talked about earlier. By dropping the word “persecution”, the Act in its writing looks like an implicit acknowledgement that for people belonging to Six Religions (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity) and from three countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh), India is their natural home and it is their right to come to India any time and claim visa and later citizenship.

What the Act in effect does is that it discriminates through an arbitrary criteria “Religion” and “Region”. It very smartly sidelines the Muslims from these three countries. The Act, very cautiously chooses only those countries where Muslims are in majority. There are Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis, and Christians in other neighboring countries like Sri Lanka, Nepal, Myanmar, Bhutan and China. In Sri Lanka, the Tamil-Hindus are persecuted, Rohingyas from Myanmar are the world’s most persecuted minorities. In fact, certain Muslim sects are persecuted in Muslim majority countries. If giving refuge to the persecuted was the intent, then the act would have definitely not been as arbitrary and as explicitly exclusionary as it is today. This is against the heritage of India and strongly dents the spirit of the Constitution of India.

The Act brings into many questions, of which there are no official answers, and no matter how hard you think, these contestations have no logical justification.

1.      Why is the cutoff date 31^st December 2014? Have persecutions ended after this date?

2.      Why are religious minorities of Sri Lanka & Myanmar ignored?

3.      Why are agnostics and atheists not included?

4.      Why do Hazaras, Ahmadiyya, Shias, Tamil-Hindus, Rohingya, Uighur-Muslims, and other persecuted groups (like political persecutions) from other neighboring countries not included?

5.      What is the Intelligible differentiation and Reasonable classification behind choosing just 6 religions from 3 countries?

6.      How will the government arrive at a conclusion that a person belongs to a specific religion? If self-declaration will be valid, then will a criminal from Pakistan who sneaked into India and changed his name, to say “Rajesh”, while his real name is “Abdul” also get citizenship?

7.      Will Non-Muslims from these three countries charged of financial and other crimes be given refuge and citizenship in India just because they are not Muslims?

8.      What is the logic behind which the government believes that there is a dire need to provide shelter to the people of these 6 religions from these 3 countries? Was there an academic exercise done? Even if so, what is the need to award citizenship? What is the issue with sticking with providing them with LTVs and later awarding citizenship through naturalization?

The funniest thing is that even if these questions are answered (though they can’t be answered without arbitrariness and illogic), the Act will remain against the secular fabric of the Constitution. For the first time in India, a Citizenship law is be based on religion. Article 6 and Article 7 already deals with migrants from Pakistan and their citizenship in India. If the intention was to provide relief to refugees, then suitable changes could have been made in these Articles itself, rather than amending Article 5 and defining Citizenship through religion.

Also, the Act is pursued on a ‘Mission Mode’, at a time when The Social Hostilities Index of India (SHI) (Which measures religious hostility by private individuals, organisations or groups in the society) is 9.7/10.  This figure is highest amongst all neighboring countries. This is happening at the time when there are major allegations against the government to have diluted the RTI Act and have severely lowered the autonomy of Election Commission, CBI, RBI, CIC, CVC, etc. This is happening at the time, when the Economy of India is on a free fall. Retail inflation is at a 5 year high of 7.3%, Food inflation is up to 14.12% and all major economic indicators are in zero or negative terrain. This is happening at a time when the unemployment level is at a 45 years high.

While many are calling this as a diversionary tactic, to divert the attention of larger public from government’s failure on growth, economy, development, jobs and on almost all social and political indicators. However, in my opinion, the mandate for second tenure of Modi was seeked against such agenda, and I see the government executing on its mandate.

India was imagined as a Secular country which will have no state religion. This act, by acknowledging India to be a natural homeland for non-Muslims from three countries, and by explicitly disallowing Muslims to be on equal footing, is the first big acknowledgement that today’s India is the India of Savarkar’s imagination, An India that is a Hindu-Rashtra and is Akhand (Undivided). Any amount of Pan-India protests have not moved the Government to rethink its stand, so, all hopes now remain with the Supreme Court to protect the soul of India and defend the Constitution.

The post CAA is first big step towards Savarkar’s Akhand Hindu-Rashtra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

There is no doubt that the founding philosophy of administration in India is based upon the pre-independence British rule, and our Indian Constitution does hold true many laws that then existed. However, the British Law in India and the Indian Constitution are widely divergent in letter and in spirit.
 
The Government of India Act, and subsequent acts were also legacy of the British and aimed at centralizing the authority and to bring immunity to public control. However, our Constitution envisages democratic supremacy and works for the welfare of the state. It is absolutely shameful that the British colonial era laws continue to have relevancy in the legal systems of India and of Pakistan even today.
 
Interestingly the Sedition law drafted by Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1833 aimed to keep an eye on Indian “subjects” so that they do not express “disloyalty” towards the Empress of India who sat in London. The law successfully suppressed nationalist dissent in the subcontinent during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Ironically, it is being applied today to curtail what some critics feel are reasonable criticisms of the government. To add to another irony, the UK has itself abolished its own sedition law in year 2010, following the recommendations based on Britain’s Law Commission’s Report.
 
Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, in its current form, stipulates that:
“Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.”
 
When nationalism broke out in India during 19th and early 20th Century in India, then people openly started to criticize the British Government of India. There were speeches made and prominent Indian Nationalists and freedom fighters printed various journals in many languages. Dramatic Performances Act 1876, The Vernacular Press Act 1878 were subsequent acts passed to control oral, written, pictorial, or performance based creative expressions and for better control of Indian language newspapers. Local language newspapers and journals were extremely effective in mass mobilizing people and for making them understand the real reasons for their suffering.
 
Various leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, B.G. Tilak were charged with sedition. In the response of the charges, Mahatma Gandhi had said, “Section 124A under which I am happily charged is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen.”
 
History brings bad taste in the mouth when we read more about how this draconian law was misused to suppress popular voices, majorly of dissent. This law also contributed to suppress vibrant political movements against the British Colonial rule.
 
“Obnoxious and highly objectionable one in body of law”
                                                                             — J. L. Nehru (1951, Parliament) and suggested to get rid of it sooner”
 
Today also, this draconian law is widely misinterpreted and misused to target popular dissent. Unfortunately, it suppresses the voices of our own people. The constitutionality of Sedition has been challenged in various cases. In many of the cases, Honb’le High courts have declared “Sec. 124-A Sedition” as unconstitutional and void stating that “mere criticism of the government without any tendency to create public disorder has caught within the mischief of Sec. 124-A, then that section would be invalidated” as it restrict freedom of speech and expression.
 
This decision was from Allahabad High court from Ram Nandan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh was overruled in Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar, wherein the Constitution Bench of the Court held the Section 124-A constitutional. The court marked clear differences between speech and writing and also explains what possibly can excite violence or public disorder. The court however added, — strong criticisms of the government which speak “in strong terms upon the measures or acts of Government, or its agencies, so as to ameliorate the condition of the people or to secure the cancellation or alteration of those acts or measures by lawful means, that is to say, without exciting those feelings of enmity and disloyalty which imply excitement to public disorder or the use of violence.”
 
Further, in Balwant Singh vs. State of Punjab, the Honb’le Court held that “advocating revolution, or advocating even violent overthrow of the state, does not amount to sedition, unless there is incitement to violence, and more importantly, the incitement is to ‘imminent’ violence”.
 
In Arup Bhuyan vs. State of Assam the Honb’le Supreme Court agreed with US Court decision in Brandenburg vs. State of Ohio, to state that “mere membership of a banned organisation will not incriminate a person unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence or does an act intended to violence.”
 
India has moved away from Imperialism to democracy but sadly these draconian laws still rule the statute books. Despite wide criticism, subsequent governments in India have used it as a tool to “Silence” dissenters.
 
It is high time and government must issue guidelines stating clear grounds of jurisprudential parameters of the law of sedition, otherwise it will be misused continuously and the state will fail to ensure right to dissent and democratic fabric of the country.
 
Even in Constituent Assembly, KM Munshi opposed the move and said, “if the provision was allowed to stay, an erroneous impression would be created that we want to perpetuate 124A of the IPC or it’s meaning which was considered good law in earlier days.” It is shameful and disheartening that the government in free India continue to use it for the very purpose for which the colonial government used it.

Shariq Us Sabah is a writer and economist and has published two books.

The post Dissenting in a Democracy with draconian Sedition Act appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Talking about Sedition, Ironically it was a law drafted by Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1833 which checked that the Indian “subjects” do not express “disloyalty” towards the Empress of India who sat in London. The law successfully suppressed nationalist dissent in the subcontinent during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Ironically, it is being applied today to curtail what some critics feel are reasonable criticisms of the government.

To add to another irony, the UK has itself abolished its own sedition law in year 2010, following the recommendations based on Britain’s Law Commission’s Report.

Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, in its current form, stipulates that:

“Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.”

When nationalism broke out in India during 19th and early 20th Century in India, then people openly started to criticize the British Government of India. There were speeches made and prominent Indian Nationalists and freedom fighters printed various journals in many languages. Dramatic Performances Act 1876, The Vernacular Press Act 1878 were subsequent acts passed to control oral, written, pictorial, or performance based creative expressions and for better control of Indian language newspapers. Local language newspapers and journals were extremely effective in mass mobilizing people and for making them understand the real reasons for their sufferings.

Various leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, B.G. Tilak were charged for sedition. In the response of the charges, Mahatma Gandhi had said, “Section 124A under which I am happily charged is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen.”
History brings bad taste in the mouth when we read more about how this draconian law was misused to suppress popular voices, majorly of dissent. This law also contributed to suppress vibrant political movements against the British Colonial rule.
“Obnoxious and highly objectionable one in body of law”
                                                                             — J. L. Nehru (1951, Parliament) and suggested to get rid of it sooner”

Today also, this draconian law is widely misinterpreted and misused to target popular dissent. Unfortunately, it suppresses the voices of our own people. The constitutionality of Sedition has been challenged in various cases. In many of the cases, Honb’le High courts have declared “Sec. 124-A Sedition” as unconstitutional and void stating that “mere criticism of the government without any tendency to create public disorder has caught within the mischief of Sec. 124-A, then that section would be invalidated” as it restrict freedom of speech and expression.

This decision was from Allahabad High court from Ram Nandan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh was overruled in Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar, wherein the Constitution Bench of the Court held the Section 124-A constitutional. The court marked clear differences between speech and writing and also explains what possibly can excite violence or public disorder. The court however added, — strong criticisms of the government which speak “in strong terms upon the measures or acts of Government, or its agencies, so as to ameliorate the condition of the people or to secure the cancellation or alteration of those acts or measures by lawful means, that is to say, without exciting those feelings of enmity and disloyalty which imply excitement to public disorder or the use of violence.”

Further, in Balwant Singh vs. State of Punjab, the Honb’le Court held that “advocating revolution, or advocating even violent overthrow of the state, does not amount to sedition, unless there is incitement to violence, and more importantly, the incitement is to ‘imminent’ violence”.

In Arup Bhuyan vs. State of Assam the Honb’le Supreme Court agreed with US Court decision in Brandenburg vs. State of Ohio, to state that “mere membership of a banned organisation will not incriminate a person unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence or does an act intended to violence”

India has moved away from Imperialism to democracy but sadly these draconian laws still rule the statute books. Despite wide criticism, subsequent governments in India have used it as a tool to “Silence” dissenters.

It is high time and government must issue guidelines stating clear grounds of jurisprudential parameters of the law of sedition, otherwise it will be misused continuously and the state will fail to ensures right to dissent and democratic fabric of the country.

Even in Constituent Assembly, KM Munshi opposed the move and said, “ if the provision was allowed to stay, an erroneous impression would be created that we want to perpetuate 124A of the IPC or it’s meaning which was considered good law in earlier days.” Its shameful and disheartening that the governments in free India continue to use it for the very purpose for which the colonial government used it.

Shariq Us Sabah is a Writer and Economist and has published two books.

Courtesy: https://countercurrents.org/
 

The post Sedition Law And Human Rights appeared first on SabrangIndia.