The churn in Bihar

Outgrowing, even undercutting one’s political mentor is nothing unusual among politicians. To cite contemporary examples, Narendra Modi and Arvind Kejriwal had to walk out of the shadows of their respective mentors, L.K. Advani and Anna Hazare, to establish themselves as figures of political authority. Bihar Chief Minister Jitan Ram Manjhi’s revolt against his former mentor and Janata Dal (United) leader, Nitish Kumar, is however in many ways one of its kind. For one, it was Mr. Kumar who won the mandate in 2010. He had made it for a second consecutive term riding a popularity wave he had created on account of two features that defined his politics — good governance and social empowerment. Mr. Manjhi was an accidental inheritor of that mandate, when Mr. Kumar decided to step aside after the setback his party suffered in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. Mr. Manjhi had not earned what he now claims to be his — the Chief Minister’s chair.

Mr. Manjhi began to dissociate himself from Mr. Kumar soon after becoming Chief Minister, and sounded the bugle of revolt in an interview to The Hindu on January 6, 2015, where he declared that his achievements in social empowerment were better than Mr. Kumar’s, and that the next Chief Minister of the State should be a Mahadalit, the lowest section of the Dalit community that he belongs to. From then on, Mr. Kumar had no option but to replace Mr. Manjhi, whose rebellious reaction has complicated the matrix of caste politics in Bihar. Mr. Kumar’s attempts to build a broad social coalition ahead of the Assembly elections in the State, due in October, by bringing together the backward communities, Dalits and Muslims, in an alliance with the RJD, the Congress and the Left, will now have to be fine-tuned. The BJP, with which Mr. Kumar split in 2013 after a 17-year-long coalition arrangement, opposing Mr. Modi’s projection as Prime Minister, is hungering to bid for power in the State. Attracting a good chunk of Dalit votes has been a component of the BJP’s winning strategy in Maharashtra and Haryana recently. The party is using the chance to widen the gulf between Dalits and the backwards to its own benefit, yet is wary of getting too closely identified with the unremarkable track record of Mr. Manjhi in governance, often marred by allegations of impropriety and corruption. The ability of the regrouped factions of the erstwhile Janata Party to resist the Modi-led BJP will also be tested in the crucial State that elects 40 Lok Sabha members. It is going to be an uphill task for Mr. Kumar to recover the ground, but this is a fight he cannot avoid, and it will have national resonance.

Fast-tracking disputes resolution

Recognising the optimism in Indian markets, driven by a government that is encouraging growth in trade and commerce, the Law Commission of India (LCI) in its recent 253rd Report has recommended reforms that can support this economic growth from a legal perspective. These are much-needed reforms in a growing economy where commercial disputes are often complex and of high value. The LCI has recommended the establishment of a commercial division in the High Courts to ensure speedy disposal of high-value commercial suits. It has proposed a bill, titled The Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts and Commercial Courts Bill, 2015, and substantive procedural changes in the form of amendments to the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The bill will define ‘commercial disputes’ so as to include ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers, joint ventures, partnerships, insurance companies and so on. These courts will have jurisdiction to hear only those disputes valued at Rs.1 crore or more. A commercial appellate division will hear appeals on the orders and decrees of the commercial courts. The Chief Justice will nominate judges with expertise and experience in commercial matters to the commercial and appellate courts. All pending commercial disputes beyond the specified value will be transferred to the commercial division. These recommendations are aimed to ensure disposal of cases expeditiously, fairly, and at reasonable cost.

The LCI had, in its 188th Report, recommended the setting up of specialised commercial courts, but the Rajya Sabha did not pass it then. The proposed bill is the consequence of a re-examination of the previous version tabled in Parliament in 2009. The LCI considers the suggested measures to be a pilot project that would lead to more expansive structural reforms. In the five High Courts with original jurisdiction, there are 32,656 civil suits pending, marking a 6.27 per cent increase in pendency over the previous year. One of the reasons for the large pendency is the shortage of judges in the original side of the High Courts. For instance, in the Madras High Court only four judges were allocated for the 41,702 cases pending on the original side in 2013. So the judiciary has to first tackle the root problem of high pendency rates and the mismatch between pending suits and the number of judges hearing it. Launching grand programmes or pursuing foreign investment without making necessary internal reforms in an already slow and overburdened judicial system will render these policies ineffective in the long run. The LCI’s recommendations are undoubtedly timely and need to be taken up without undue delay.

Silence is not an option

Two successive statements by U.S. President Barack Obama within a span of nine days on the shrinking religious tolerance in India have created some flutter. In the first instance, as he wound up his India visit on January 27, Mr. Obama underscored the point that countries that are divided within along religious lines cannot progress; in the second one, on February 5, he said the acts of religious intolerance that are being reported in India would have shocked Mahatma Gandhi. Though the White House later said that the President’s remarks were not aimed at anyone in particular, they have embarrassed the Narendra Modi government. The Congress has seized the opportunity to attack the government for inaction in the face of the acts of intolerance, while hardline Hindutva groups such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad have seen in Mr. Obama’s remarks a pattern of unwelcome interference. It is curious that Mr. Obama invoked two motifs that Mr. Modi has repeatedly claimed to have been guided by — first, the Constitution, and second, Gandhian ideals. It is also curious that Mr. Modi invokes Gandhi on issues ranging from cleanliness to diaspora concerns, but not when it comes to the question of religious harmony.

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley’s statement — that “India’s huge cultural history of tolerance” cannot be altered by aberrations — is perfectly valid, but such well-meaning statements by themselves just would not do. The point of concern is that the tradition of tolerance that Mr. Jaitley — like most Indians — takes pride in, is being attacked and weakened. Liberties and values will have to be nurtured in order for them to be enduring. That is the reason why Mr. Modi’s silence on recurring reports of desecration of churches and intimidation of religious minorities by extremist groups has become a matter of concern, as noticed also by the outside world, and reflected in a recent editorial in The New York Times. More troubling is the fact that these acts are being committed by groups that belong to the larger ideological universe that Mr. Modi has been associated with. This is not to overlook violence promoted in the name of other faiths, but the question here is about the links of intolerance to political power that controls the state. Mr. Modi has told his party colleagues that he does not want to be distracted from his economic agenda by contentious issues. Tolerance, though essential for growth, cannot be reduced to an instrumentality of growth, and the amiable coexistence of diverse religious and cultural traditions is an end in itself. The Indian Constitution enshrines a set of fundamental freedoms and rights. The government of the day has a constitutional duty to uphold these rights and freedoms. A government should not only be fair but also be seen to be so, and needs to be outspoken in the defence of constitutional values.

For a stitch in time

Every year, hundreds of precious lives are being lost to the H1N1 influenza, described by medical experts as just another preventable and curable form of seasonal flu. This year, the toll has already crossed the 200-mark, and over 2,500 people are being treated in hospitals and in homes. Rajasthan, Telangana, Gujarat and Maharashtra are bearing the brunt of the pandemic. In Rajasthan alone, 85 people have died — the highest in the country so far. Last year, 937 cases of swine flu, as the influenza is commonly known, were reported, leading to 238 deaths. In 2012 there were 5,044 reported cases, which claimed 405 lives, while there were 5,253 cases and 699 deaths in 2013. The pandemic has been a regular occurrence in India since 2009 when the first case was reported. Even then the public health system is unable to stop these entirely preventable deaths. The level of preparedness of the States affected by H1N1 to manage an outbreak is often reviewed only after deaths are reported. This time it was done after a former Chief Minister of Rajasthan, the State Home Minister, and a Member of Parliament from Andhra Pradesh tested positive.

The situation was reviewed by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in terms of adequacy of medicines and the readiness and training of doctors and paramedical staff in public health institutions in the States. A round-the-clock Outbreak Monitoring Cell of the National Centre for Disease Control is attending to public queries on H1N1 to keep people informed and to dispel apprehensions, since January 24. On their part, the States concerned have done their bit to tackle the crisis, with Rajasthan going a step further by issuing an alert, providing free treatment, and announcing the setting up of task forces right up to the district level to monitor the situation on a daily basis. Curiously, the information, education and communication campaigns to create awareness among the masses to protect themselves from the infection, and steps for timely treatment are launched only when the rounds of outbreak peak. The States have now been advised to ensure that steps are taken to prevent any increase in the number of casualties by encouraging people to approach public health facilities on time, and to educate them on preventive methods. The simple flu becomes deadly as patients come in for treatment only when things go out of hand. Advance planning and readiness to deal with the annual seasonal outbreak by means of simple and cost-effective awareness creation by the public health authorities, would go a long way in preventing deaths.

India, China and an opportunity

Keeping up the momentum in India-China relations, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj came back from her three-day visit to China with several deliverables — including a new Chinese openness in seeing India take up permanent membership of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Previously, the Chinese had linked SCO membership with a greater role for Beijing in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). Ms. Swaraj, during her first visit to China as External Affairs Minister, built on the three meetings Prime Minister Narendra Modi has had with Chinese President Xi Jinping. She also called on the Chinese President, a rare opportunity for any visiting Foreign Minister. Clearance for the early operationalisation of a new route to Kailash Mansarovar and a decision to hold a session of talks between the Special Representatives tasked by the two sides to resolve the boundary dispute, are other takeaways. Her trip was also part of preparations for Mr. Modi’s visit later in the year. As reported in the Chinese media, President Xi himself has set the agenda for taking bilateral ties to a new level by suggesting that the two countries seize the “opportunity of the century” by combining their development strategies. With a slowing economy and sluggish European recovery, China may be focussing on the Indian market. It also appears willing to invest, following Prime Minister Modi’s “Make in India” call.

It is in such a scenario of contact and consultation that “strong leaders” such as Mr. Modi and Mr. Xi can think about making some hard decisions when it comes to the decades-old boundary dispute that keeps surfacing during major bilateral visits. So far, the coalition nature of Indian governments has been seen as a major obstacle to the give-and-take, compromise approach on the border question. Today, Mr. Modi is in the happy situation where he can take a political call on issues, rising above intra-coalition pressures. In 2005, the Agreement on the Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the Boundary Question signed by the two countries had raised hopes for an eventual settlement, but those have been belied. It would also seem that President Barack Obama’s successful visit to India around Republic Day has not dampened Beijing’s willingness to take relations with Delhi to the next level. Interestingly, India while talking to the U.S. and its other allies in the Asia-Pacific about safety in the sea-lanes, has agreed to set up a “consultation mechanism” on Asia-Pacific affairs with China and Russia. India’s diplomatic success lies in keeping several balls in the air at the same time.

The battle for Delhi

Elections to the Delhi Assembly have always attracted disproportionate national-level attention. It is voting today, February 7, for the second time in a little more than a year. The elections in December 2013 resulted in a hung Assembly. A government formed by the then-fledgling Aam Aadmi Party, with the support of the Congress that was pushed to the third slot after being in power for three consecutive terms, lasted just 49 days. Rapid turns in Delhi politics since the announcement of fresh elections have brought to the fore several questions that have lingered since the parliamentary victory of the BJP under the leadership of Narendra Modi. These relate to the sustainability of Mr. Modi’s centralised model of Hindutva politics in a diverse polity such as India’s, the possibility and the nature of an alternative to it, and the future of the Congress.

The central figure in the Delhi campaign is AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal, who transformed a loosely knit anti-corruption movement that had social activist Anna Hazare as its mascot, into a thriving political movement and party. Today it appears to be a credible challenger to the Modi juggernaut. The party’s impressive revival after its rout in the parliamentary elections of May 2014 has put the BJP on the back foot and made Delhi the first real contest for Prime Minister Modi. The BJP had an easy ride in the 2014 rounds of Assembly elections in Maharashtra, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir and Jharkhand, sustaining a certain perception of Mr. Modi being unbeatable. Halfway into the campaign in Delhi, the BJP declared its newly inducted member and former police officer Kiran Bedi as its chief ministerial candidate, restoring a practice it had abandoned since Mr. Modi became its supreme leader. But Ms. Bedi’s arrival on the scene seems to have only added to the BJP’s troubles — and she has failed to provide Mr. Modi an alibi to distance himself from a possible failure. If the BJP falls short of a majority, that will expose Mr. Modi’s vulnerability, force him to hold back on his unilateral, ongoing overhaul of the party, and put him at a disadvantage ahead of the Assembly election in the crucial State of Bihar in November. Inversely, a BJP victory will keep it on the winning trail, and tighten Mr. Modi’s personal grip on the BJP and politics in general. Indeed, an AAP victory could hold out the prospect of an alternative to Mr. Modi. The AAP could seek to expand outside Delhi, but at the very least it will stand out as a model where an unconventional leader with some credibility galvanised public opinion for change. In the midst of all this, the Congress commands limited space in Delhi. Yet, these elections hold significant lessons, and prospects, for its revival bid too.

Dealing firmly with transgressions

By giving the marching orders to Union Home Secretary Anil Goswami for trying to stall the arrest of a well-connected politician by speaking directly to Central Bureau of Investigation officers, the Narendra Modi government has sent out a strong signal to the bureaucracy that it will not tolerate such transgressions. And coming at a time when political functionaries and their associates are increasingly embroiled in criminal cases, it contains a message to high-profile suspects too, that the government will not brook any attempt to use power or influence to protect themselves from legal action. It is also an unmistakable sign that the present regime wants to insulate itself from any criticism that the CBI is under its thumb. The United Progressive Alliance regime failed miserably on that score, repeatedly rendering itself vulnerable to the criticism that it slowed down or stalled investigation into several scams. In a refreshing change of approach from a time when only judicial prodding or media exposure led to some action, Home Minister Rajnath Singh moved quickly to ascertain the facts from both the CBI Director and Mr. Goswami himself before apprising the Prime Minister of the development. While the details of what Mr. Goswami had by way of explanation are not available, it is quite obvious that his continuance became untenable as soon as he admitted to making the controversial telephone call even as former Union Minister Matang Sinh was being questioned by CBI investigators. Any hesitation on the part of the government at this point would have been indefensible.

The image of the CBI had taken a beating only recently when its Director, Ranjit Sinha, was ordered by the Supreme Court to keep away from the probe into 2G spectrum allocation cases after it was found that he had entertained some of the accused at his residence. In the light of this, the latest action aimed at insulating the agency from interference will come as a shot in the arm for its officers. However, it is a matter of concern that Matang Sinh, a former Union Minister arrested recently in connection with the Saradha chit fund scam, and whose arrest was sought to be stalled, could have such access to the higher echelons of the government. Reports suggest that long after his party, the Congress, lost power, and his own political fortunes waned, Mr. Sinh continues to wield influence in the national capital. Were his connections limited to efforts to save his own skin, or did he influence appointments or postings? The government should probe all the leads it may have that indicate the extent of his clout. It would do well not to treat the matter as closed but order a full investigation into a possible deeper nexus between bureaucrats and tainted politicians.

Reconciliation in rainbow land

The release on parole of a high-profile apartheid-era police officer convicted on 89 charges and sentenced to 212 years in 1996 is yet another reminder of South Africa’s struggle to balance justice with reconciliation. The overriding imperative of securing peace and stability between the once brutally oppressed majority black communities and their erstwhile Afrikaner white minority rulers underlay the constitution of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in 1994. Its vision entailed the avoidance of the potentially tortuous course of divisive prosecutions and the award of amnesty for all those who would come clean during public confessions before the TRC. Notably, the grant of amnesty was to be examined equally for those complicit in politically motivated crimes perpetrated against the white supremacist regime, as well as those in defence of apartheid rule. Although about 1,000 security personnel and others admitted to brutalities they had committed against activists of the African National Congress, just one Cabinet Minister pleaded guilty. A former apartheid-rule President, whom a court had implicated for unlawful acts, refused to testify. Another former President never sought amnesty, pleading ignorance about atrocities committed by the regime.

“Prime Evil”, as Eugene de Kock was described, is now to be released after 20 years in jail. But the 66-year-old convict is not the first of his ilk to be set free. The grant of amnesty in 1996 to a top police official within less than five years of the start of a life term was seen by critics as an attempt by the TRC to encourage others to atone for their crimes. Another decision to pardon a notorious killer was surrounded by questions about the veracity of the confessions. Such has been the chequered history of bringing closure to past wounds. A perception that he was made a scapegoat for actions authorised by political higher-ups, as well as his expression of genuine remorse to the relatives of victims, have influenced the grant of parole to de Kock. The question of the nature of activities that should qualify for pardon was controversial in the aftermath of the release of Nelson Mandela and the restoration of democracy in the 1990s. The ANC had insisted that guerrillas charged with crimes in the armed struggle against white minority rule were also eligible. On the eve of the TRC hearings in 1996, there was even a legal challenge from the kin of some of the victims arguing that they could not be denied the right to settle disputes in a court of law. To balance justice with reconciliation is akin to making a choice between reason and emotion. There is much to learn from South Africa on this.