National

Bihar is now the fourth dry state…but is it sound Economics?

In one of Nitish Kumar’s major moves after coming to power he has formulated laws to ban liquor in the state. With this, he kept his promise which he made in the run up to the elections. The ban came in response to the women’s protest against alcohol in the state that initiated a large scale anti-liquor campaign. The states in which liquor ban is already imposed are Nagaland, Gujarat and Kerala.

The sale of any type of alcohol, including Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and country liquor will now be completely banned in Bihar. The decision on the ban on any type of alcohol was taken on Tuesday by the Bihar cabinet, four days after a partial ban began on the production and sale of liquor on 1st of April. There was a tremendous response of people particularly women and children against liquor in Patna and other towns in a short period of four days only convinced the cabinet that a constructive environment against alcohol has been created in the state. There is also a ban on consumption of Toddy in the state.

But the real question is what will be the implication of such a major step considering the fact that alcohol is one of the major sources of revenue for any state government. If we go by the stats of 2014-15, the earnings from alcohol in Bihar sums up to more than 400 crore and their contribution to the state tax revenues increase is immense.  Nitish Kumar’s own bureaucrats are clueless on how they will make up for this huge loss. So, is this really sound economics? Certainly not. Or is this politics’ triumph over economics?

 

The ban may be bad economics with unpredictable social results, but it certainly is smart politics. Kumar received a lot of votes from women in the recent elections to the Bihar legislative assembly and he definitely want to retain this vote base. Like Lalu has a solid vote base of Yadavs and Muslims, Nitish wants one for himself and what could have been better when he had the chance of pleasing the entire women community. Prohibition appeals to all women cutting across caste, region and religion. So, this major move by Nitish Kumar is certainly a political master class.

 

 

 

Is it mere politics or a real threat to secularism in India?

 

A Political row has erupted on Dadri lynching as a number of politicians have started visiting the communally sensitive zone of Bisara Village,Dadri and making comments on the issue. All this, for electoral gains.

The residents of Bisara in order to prevent politicizing of the issue restricted entry of politicians in the area. The police on Wednesday arrested 19 people and turned away VHP leader Sadhvi Prachi. There are also prohibitory orders in place. Earlier, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi,Uttar Pradesh CM Akhilesh Yadav, Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal, Rahul Gandhi  and   BJP politicians Mahesh Sharma and Sangeet Som visited the place to earn political mileage out of the situation. Sharma and Som however were booked for violating section 144 of the IPC.

On the other hand Uttar Pradesh minister Azam Khan said that he is determined to take the lynching in Bisada to the United Nations despite widespread criticism from political parties. Khan’s remarks came against the backdrop of leaders of political parties such as the Congress, Samajwadi Party and Shiv Sena stepping up their war of words over the killing.

The incident dates back to 28^th September when a mob of people attacked the Muslim family on the night of 28 September 2015 in Bisara village near Dadri, Uttar Pradesh after rumours were spread in a local temple that the family of Mohammad Akhlaq had killed a cow and consumed its meat on Eid-ul-Adha. The attackers killed 52-year-old Mohammad Akhlaq Saifi and seriously injured his 22 year old son Danish. 

A mob carrying sticks, swords and pistols arrived at Mohammad Akhlaq’s house at around 10:30pm. The family had finished dinner and was going to sleep. Akhlaq and his son Danish were already asleep. The mob accused them of consuming beef. They found some meat in the refrigerator and seized it. But the family insisted it was mutton. The mob dragged the family outside. Akhlaq and Danish was repeatedly kicked, hit with bricks and stabbed. Akhlaq’s elderly mother and wife were also attacked. The family’s Hindu neighbours tried to stop the mob but could not succeed. The police were called and they arrived an hour later. By then, Akhlaq was dead and Danish was severely injured.

Akhlaq’s elder son, Mohammad Sartaj, 27, works as a corporal-ranked technician in the Indian Air Force and was in Chennai at the time of attack.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s office was today briefed on the mob killing of a Muslim man in Dadri last week over rumors that he had beef in his house. This is the first visible involvement of the Prime Minister’s Office amid nationwide condemnation and a political war of words over the 10-day old incident. The prime minister’s silence on the Dadri killing has been questioned by opposition parties as well as prominent citizens.

Nayantara Sehgal, nephew of Jawaharlal Nehru also protested the event what she called a “vicious assault” on “India’s culture of diversity and debate” and questioned the silence of the Prime Minister on “this reign of terror”. She returned her Sahitya Akademi award on Tuesday. Ashok Vajpeyi, former chairperson of the Lalit Kala Akademi, also returned his Sahitya Akademi award, saying, “It’s high time that writers take a stand.”

Now the real question is why our Prime Misinister is taking so long to take a stand on such a politically and communally sensitive issue in spite of widespread criticism from all corners. Moreover, if he has time or interest to tweet on the death of Asha Bhosle’s son, than why not in the case of an innocent Muslim man murdered by a communally charged mob? So, is it a failure of secularism in India with the rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party?

 

 

 

Collegiums system or NJAC???

The NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) was a proposed body which would have been responsible for the appointment and transfer of judges to the higher judiciary in India. The Commission was established by amending the Constitution of India through the 99^th constitution amendment and the NJAC act, which were passed by both the houses of the Parliament and signed by the president in 2014. The NJAC would have replaced the Collegium System (Three Judges Cases) for the appointment of judges as summoned by the Supreme Court.

The NJAC Bill and the Constitutional Amendment Bill, was approved by 16 of the state legislatures in India. Both the acts came into force from 13 April 2015. However, on 16 October 2015 the Supreme Court maintained the Collegium System and revoked the NJAC, labeling it unconstitutional after hearing the petitions filed by several persons and bodies.

The verdict had read that if the Union Law minister is contributing to the appointment of judges, how a society can expect the judges to work without being influenced by political parties.

The NJAC had a six member panel that included the chief justice of India, two senior most judges of the Supreme Court, the union law minister and two eminent persons. The two eminent persons were to be recommended by another panel consisting of the Chief Justice of India, the Prime Minister and the leader of opposition.

The judgement has evoked conflicting opinions, with one fraction supporting the NJAC and the other opposing it. Those in favour of the NJAC justify their stance by citing India’s 125 crore people that rule the country through their elected representatives in the different organs of the legislature. They say that the sovereignty of the nation which lies with the people of India cannot be compromised, which is exercised by the people through Parliament. The verdict has a strong opposition from the central government and also the opposition. They say that the Supreme court has upheld only one basic structure- Independence of the Judiciary but has declined other basic structure that are the elected government, the council of Ministers and the Prime Minister.

Union Minister, Arun Jaitley in an interview launched direct attack on the judiciary, calling the judgement flawed. He said that democracy itself would be in danger if the elected are undermined. There are also other learned jurists who have criticized the existing collegiums system and raised the need for a reform. K.P.S. Gill, a former DGP, said that India is the only country where judges select themselves, determine their own transfers and discipline themselves. He recommended the setting up of a judicial commission that would not only be responsible for the appointment and transfer of judges but also for seeing to it that judges perform their duties without any favor.

On the other hand, India is based on the Montesquieu’s theory of the separation of powers which state that one organ should not interfere with the powers of another. The state is divided into the executive, the legislature and the judiciary and has separate set of functions. In short, the legislature is to make laws, executive is to perform the law and the judiciary is to defend it. The legislature however cannot make a law which violates the basic structure of the constitution, which states that all its three pillars cannot interfere in each other’s affairs.

The judiciary exists to serve the people by performing various functions like passing and upholding judgments in the interest of the people, interpreting the constitution and also exists to keep the government in check. In such an institution, will government presence not mean compromising the authenticity of the judiciary in dealing with the legislature and the executive? Is intruding on judicial territory acceptable in the name of ensuring accountability or is there any ulterior motive of the government to keep the judicial bench under the eye of the government?

Ideally, there should be a check in each and every organization and the judiciary being one of them. However, is it necessary for such a check to come from Legislature? Moreover, how can you justify the veto offered to the two eminent persons and especially when such persons are elected by a board consisting of two persons from the legislature out of three.

Many even argue that judges are human and can be vulnerable to personal biases. But doesn’t the same law apply to the legislature. If the judiciary is vulnerable to personal biasness then so is legislature. Even the so-called democratically elected prime minister is not so directly elected by us or even the leader of the opposition.

There is no denying the fact that there is an urgent need of replacing the age old and erroneous collegiums system to make it more transparent but does it have to come from an already questionable NJAC?