Indira Gandhi: A life of courageous conviction

Indira Gandhi: A life of courageous conviction
Throughout her political life, Indira Gandhi made the tough choices that were necessary for guaranteeing a strong, secular nation that lived up to its socialist ideals
Indira Gandhi was born 100 years ago on Sunday. It was a year that shook the world as the Bolshevik revolution took place, almost at the same time. In India too, the year was momentous as the country got ready to wage a full-fledged struggle against British imperialism under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi.

Indira Gandhi, whose grandfather and father were leading the struggle for freedom under the Indian National Congress, was born in a family of freedom fighters. Her education began through the letters written to her by her father Jawaharlal Nehru from prisons, providing her glimpses of Indian history and the evolution of Indian society. She was further educated by two of the greatest teachers of the contemporary period—Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore. She spent some time in Shanti Niketan. Born and brought up in an atmosphere of nationalist fervour, she was naturally attracted to the freedom struggle in her early years and went on to organize the “Banar Sena”. She deftly used it to contact those who were engaged in the freedom struggle, supplying information during the Non-Cooperation Movement.

She became Congress president in 1959, and long before that, she was chosen as a member of the Congress Working Committee (CWC). She took active interest in this great national organization but did not acquire any office, devoting herself to looking after her father who was steering a new India and laying the foundation of a strong, secular, democratic society. After his death, she was requested by the Congress leadership to join the cabinet of Lal Bahadur Shastri, who succeeded Nehru as prime minister. And after Shastri’s death, she showed her mettle by accepting the challenge to contest the election for the leadership of the party, defeating the veteran leader Morarji Desai by a thumping majority.

When she became prime minister in 1966, she was a member of the Rajya Sabha and served as such for a year, but decided to contest the popular elections within a year. During the general elections in 1967, she won from Uttar Pradesh’s Rae Bareilly constituency. Even while being elected leader of the Congress in Parliament and chosen as prime minister, she realized that the party was in deep crisis, manifesting in defeat in that year’s general elections in several states like Bihar, West Bengal, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Within a few months of the elections, the party also lost governments in two important states, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, owing to the defection of a large number of Congress legislators.

She recognized that people had lost confidence in the Congress—and the defeat of a large number of important leaders in their own constituencies, including the then Congress president Kamraj Nadar, pointed to the need for shock treatment to cure the party’s ailment. In election after election, people believed in the Congress’s promises, which were not kept. To regain the people’s confidence, therefore, the party must keep its promises to them. She provided this by emphasizing that the Congress must stick to its ideology.

In the All India Congress Committee session at Bangalore, she made known to the members of the CWC and the parliamentary board the “10 Points” programme which she chose to galvanise the organization on an ideological basis. She recommended major reforms in its economic policies. Unfortunately, the note was not appreciated by the majority of the members of the CWC, but that did not deter her from taking drastic action. She nationalized 14 scheduled commercial banks on 13 July 1969 through an ordinance.

The background of this decision was the refusal of Congress leadership in the CWC to accommodate her 10 Points. First, she attempted to persuade Morarji Desai to accept her proposal of bank nationalisation, but he refused to do so. Then, she asked him to relinquish the finance ministry and accept any other portfolio, but he threatened to resign if the finance portfolio was taken away from him. She readily accepted the resignation and took on the responsibility of the ministry for a year.

The more orthodox section of the Congress leadership in both the CWC and Central Parliamentary Board had the majority, and they rejected her progressive ideas of major economic reforms. She reminded the Congress leadership time and again that from the days of the Avadi Congress in 1955, the party had been committed to create a socialist society and promised major economic reforms. But these promises had never been fulfilled despite the fact that people supported the party in 1957 after Avadi and in 1962 with the hope that the Congress would keep its word. To rebuild the party’s credibility, action, and not words, were required. She saw socialism as a commitment to the nation—and bank nationalisation was just the first step.

The decision resulted in rich dividends for the country. Its impact has been evident even in the last decade when the Indian banking system stood resilient, even as some of the major European and US banks suffered catastrophic meltdowns after the financial crisis in 2008. Incidentally, public sector banks dominate the banking industry in India. Her belief that prudent management of public sector banks was the key to banking strategy and business in India stood vindicated.

Indira Gandhi was convinced that associations and institutions which subsumed large social objectives should be under public control. To achieve this objective, apart from bank nationalization she brought about legislation nationalizing general insurance, coal mines etc, and major amendments in Acts like the Industrial Development & Regulation Act that could facilitate government takeover of sick industries if the government deemed it necessary in the larger public interest.

While socialism and secularism are implicit in the text of the Constitution, particularly in the Directive Principles of State Policy, she made it explicit through the 42nd Amendment by inserting the two words ‘Socialist & Secular’. Many people considered it unnecessary as the entire text of the Constitution is oriented towards socialism and secularism, but she thought it necessary to make it explicit. Insertion of the words ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ in the preamble of the Constitution to define the state, which was earlier just sovereign, democratic republic, emanated out of her belief that insertion of these two words in the preamble would define the characteristics of Indian State adequately.

In 1978, after victory in the Chikamagalur by-election, which brought her back to Lok Sabha after her defeat in 1977, Indira Gandhi visited the UK in November that year. At the annual banquet speech of the British-Indian Association, then-British Deputy Prime Minister Michael Foot, observed, The Indira Gandhi story has not come to an end after the defeat in general elections of 1977 as many people believe she is doomed forever. I can tell them, many more glorious chapters are going to be added in her new innings.” Not only did she return with a bang within two years by scoring a resounding victory in the 1980 Lok Sabha elections, she also subsequently won all the states, except Tamil Nadu, where elections took place.

In this new innings beginning in 1980, by hosting the 7th Non-Aligned Summit, she clearly conveyed to the world that the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was a guarantee to secure the liberty of people and to ensure peace and harmony in the world. Her ceaseless efforts for the cause of humanity became visible wherever the people suffered. Be it the people of Algeria or those of South Africa, Angola and Namibia, she stood for them and always opposed the tormentors. This sensitivity was at display as early as 1946, when she as a young woman found an agitated crowd of a hundred or so people attempting to kill an old man. She stopped her car and ran to protect the man by standing before him. The angry crowd shouted at her menacingly and asked her, “Who are you and what are you doing?” She calmly asked them, “Who are you and what are you doing?” They shouted back, “We want to kill this man and if you don’t leave him to our hand, you will have the same fate.” Without raising her voice, she calmly told them, ”You can’t. You are cowards. You have no sense of purpose and don’t know what are you doing. I know what I am doing.” The crowd melted away in the face of her courage and fortitude, leaving the man unharmed. After hearing this story, Gandhi asked her to work in the Muslim mohallas of Delhi, which she did alone, with a tremendous impact in creating an atmosphere where people of all faiths could live in peace and harmony.

This courage and conviction remained with her until her life was snatched away by assassins’ bullets. Before taking the drastic step of Operation Blue Star, she knew that the Sikhs would never forgive her for this happening in the Golden Temple, their most holy place. She told her advisors that she was aware of this feeling amongst the community. She said that she had deep respect for all religions and was inspired by the sacrifices and dedicated works of all the great gurus. But for her, it was not a question of religion, but the fact that in the name of religion, misguided elements were causing great harm to national unity and integrity. She said that as prime minister, she could not remain a silent spectator. The events of the day were well known to them, she told her advisors, and asked them what else the government could do. There was no answer. In the aftermath of Blue Star, many advisors suggested she remove Sikh personnel from her security arrangements. She refused to agree to this and said it would convey a totally wrong message.

Indira Gandhi’s contribution to world peace and disarmament were visible in her steely protests against the flawed NPT (non-proliferation treaty). Though she was in agreement with the treaty’s basic objective, she could not agree to two categories of states: one privileged class that possessed nuclear weapons and unrestricted access to nuclear materials for whatever purpose they deemed fit, and a vast number of other countries who would be denied access to the peaceful use of nuclear materials to generate electricity and remove poverty in their countries. She did not agree to this discrimination and refused to sign the NPT, which is the policy of the nation to date. The first nuclear explosion at Pokhran in 1974 brought sanctions against India. Trade restrictions and stoppage of economic assistance did not deter her. The second test conducted by Atal Bihari Vajpayee as prime minister in 1998 vindicated her stand.

Indira Gandhi is no longer amongst us. Thirty-four years ago, assassins’ bullets silenced the voice which always inspired Indians to be proud of everything Indian. In her death, she left a message to the people of this country and to the whole world: a commitment to the people can never be killed by any power, however strong it may be.

Pranab Mukherjee is a former president of India.

The emerging Indo-Pacific architecture

The emerging Indo-Pacific architecture
While the ‘Quad’ is a crucial pillar of the peace and security architecture in the Indo-Pacific region, it needs to be buttressed by at least two other pillars—EAS and Apec
The term “Indo-Pacific” has long been in vogue among marine biologists and ichthyologists to define the stretch of water from the tropical Indian Ocean, through the equatorial seas around the Indonesian archipelago, the South China Sea, and to the western and central Pacific Ocean. The term entered the geopolitical lexicon only in the early 21st century and, predictably, has proved to be far more contentious than its scientific definition. The region has been the locale for some of the bloodiest inter- and intra-state wars in the 20th century and promises to be the theatre for similar conflagrations in the foreseeable future between failing, emerging and established nuclear-armed countries. This potential for conflict is exacerbated by the absence of a robust regional peace and security architecture.

Against this backdrop, efforts to rejuvenate the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (or the “Quad”) between Australia, India, Japan and the US on the sidelines of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the East Asia Summit (EAS) in Manila are of notable significance. Although this meeting was low-keyed and downplayed by India in particular, the Quad itself has the potential to secure the region against great power conflict.

There are several factors why the countries chose to revivify the Quad at this juncture. For India, the Doklam confrontation with China and concerns over the latter’s so-called Belt Road Initiative (BRI) were crucial considerations. Similarly, following US secretary of state Rex Tillerson’s visit, there is a desire to engage Washington more closely in the region. For Australia, and to some extent Japan, the key drivers behind formally reviving the Quad was the concern about the commitment of the Donald Trump administration to the bilateral alliance arrangements and the quest to buttress them with the Quad commitment. For the US, the Quad offers a way to share its burden of containing China in the region.

When it comes to fruition, the Quad will not be dissimilar to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato), which managed to “keep Russia out, the US in and Germany down”. Most observers have simplistically branded the nascent organization as a tool to contain China. However, to be truly effective—like Nato—the Indo-Pacific Quad will also have to fulfil three simultaneous missions: keep China out, the US in and Japan down.

While managing China and keeping Beijing on the status-quoist path, the Quad will also have to ensure the continued engagement and commitment of Washington to the region, which can no longer be taken for granted. Given the disruptive and isolationist tendency of Trump (evident in his skipping the EAS) and, possibly other future US leaders, this is a crucial role that the organization will have to fulfil. Similarly, given Japan’s brutal World War II record in the region, the Quad will also have to reassure other potential future members, including from ASEAN, that Tokyo’s role will remain benign and any revisionist tendencies will be kept in check.

Although the Quad was formally initiated in 2007 at the prompting of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe, its informal origins can be traced to 2004. In the wake of the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami, Australia, India, Japan and the US launched an ad-hoc humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) mission, which allowed them to come together operationally. Since then the four navies have worked together on several occasions.

While formal Quad meetings were shelved following strong objections from China in 2007, discussions nonetheless continued. For instance, in 2015 the foreign secretaries of Australia, India and Japan met ostensibly to firm up the security leg of India’s “Act East” policy. Soon thereafter the India, Japan, US trilateral meeting was held in Honolulu. Thus, the Quad continued to function under the garb of two trilateral meetings. Subsequently, since 2015, the India-US Malabar naval exercises have included Japan and are likely to include Australia in the next iteration, thus making the military component of the Quad a reality.

Nonetheless, the Quad’s potential is likely to be limited by several internal differences. For instance, while India promotes the principle of “freedom of navigation”, it is reluctant to enforce it through freedom of navigation operations by sailing warships through exclusive economic zones, particularly in the South China Seas. Thus, the 2015 Indian Maritime Security Strategy cautions that there may be divergent security perceptions “with nations that may be traditional friends (read US)”. Members of the Quad will have to address these differences to develop the institution further.

Moreover, while the Quad is a crucial pillar of the peace and security architecture in the Indo-Pacific region, it needs to be buttressed by at least two other pillars. The EAS serves the role of the political pillar and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) as the trade and economic pillar. While all Quad participants are members of EAS, India is still not a member of Apec. This lacuna needs to be remedied if New Delhi is to contribute to all three pillars of the Indo-Pacific architecture.

Finally, India will also have to shed its inherent abhorrence for formal military arrangements and cooperation, even though this might bring with it the prospect of being dragged into a war not of its making. As Nato has shown, sometimes a democratic military alliance is essential to maintain peace.

India’s nominee Dalveer Bhandari re-elected to ICJ

India’s nominee Dalveer Bhandari re-elected to ICJ

United Kingdom’s candidate Christopher Greenwood opts out from the race.

India’s nominee to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Dalveer Bhandari was on Monday re-elected to the fifth and the last seat of the world court after Britain withdrew its candidate from the election.

Mr. Bhandari received 183-193 votes in the General Assembly and secured all the 15 votes in the Security Council after separate and simultaneous elections were held at the UN headquarters in New York.

The elections were held after United Kingdom, in a dramatic turn of events, withdrew out of the race for the Hague-based ICJ, thus paving the way for Mr. Bhandari’s re-election to the prestigious world court.

Mr. Bhandari and Britain’s Christopher Greenwood were locked in a neck-and-neck fight for re-election to the ICJ.

The permanent members of the Security Council — USA, Russia, France and China — were understood to have been throwing their weight behind Mr. Greenwood. The UK is the fifth permanent member of the Security Council.

In a dramatic turn of events, the British Permanent Representative to the UN, Matthew Rycroft, wrote identical letters to the presidents of the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council, before the two chambers were scheduled to meet at 3 pm for the 12th round of voting.

Read out simultaneously by both the presidents of the General Assembly and the Security Council, Mr. Rycroft said that its candidate Judge Christopher Greenwood had decided to withdraw from the election to the 15-membered ICJ.

In the 11 rounds of voting, Mr. Bhandari had got nearly two-thirds of the votes in the General Assembly and in Security Council Greenwood consistently received nine votes as against five for his opponent. This resulted in a stalemate.

As per the letter read out simultaneously in the General Assembly and the Security Council, Rycroft said the current deadlock is unlikely to be broken by further rounds of voting.

As such he announced withdrawal from the race. With Mr. Bhandari being the only candidate left in the race, the General Assembly and Security Council still went through the formal motion of voting to complete the formalities.

Pleased to see ‘close friend’ win: UK

Congratulating Justice Bhandari, the UK said it will continue to cooperate closely with India at the United Nations and globally.

“The UK has concluded that it is wrong to continue to take up the valuable time of the Security Council and the UN General Assembly with further rounds of elections,” Mr. Rycroft said.

Britain, he said, congratulates the successful candidates, including Judge Bhandari of India.

“We are naturally disappointed, but it was a competitive field with six strong candidates,” Mr. Rycroft added.

“If the UK could not win in this run-off, then we are pleased that it is a close friend like India that has done so instead. We will continue to cooperate closely with India, here in the United Nations and globally,” he said.

Britain’s withdrawal from the election to the prestigious world court would mean that there will not be a British judge on the UN’s most powerful court for the first time in its history.

Western Ghats’s biodiversity faces threat of encroachment: UN body

Western Ghats’s biodiversity faces threat of encroachment: UN body
Biodiversity in the Western Ghats is facing a threat from deforestation, encroachment and conversion, says International Union for Conservation of Nature at the UN climate change conference in Bonn
Biodiversity in India’s iconic Western Ghats is facing a threat from forest loss, encroachment and conversion, said a global environment agency in its report.

It also put the hills in the “significant concern” category in its new outlook in the conservation prospects of natural World Heritage sites. The report, released recently by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) at the UN climate change conference in Bonn, Germany, says pressure from the human population in the Western Ghats region is greater than that faced by many protected areas around the world.

The new report, “IUCN World Heritage Outlook 2”, which assesses for the first time changes in conservation prospects of all 241 natural World Heritage sites, warns that climate change will probably exacerbate a system already under pressure and has the potential to impact the large-scale monsoonal processes which the Western Ghats influence. Moderating the region’s tropical climate,the site presents one of the best examples of the monsoon system on the planet.

A network of 39 separately managed sites in the Western Ghats was inscribed as a World Heritage site by Unesco in 2012. It says ongoing pressure for development would continue to place the Western Ghats under high threat. Traditionally conserved by small populations of indigenous people leading sustainable lifestyles, the area is under increasing population and developmental pressure, requiring intensive and targeted management efforts to ensure that not only are existing values conserved, but that some past damage may be remediated, it says.

The report said pressure from human populations in this region should not be underestimated. 50 million people are estimated to live in the Western Ghats, “resulting in pressures which are orders of magnitude greater than many protected areas around the world”. Evidence suggests that forest loss, encroachment and conversion continue to affect the property, it said. It, however, acknowledges the initiatives taken by the government to protect the biodiversity of Ghats.

“The challenges are many, but the will by both government and non-governmental groups to ensure the conservation of the Western Ghats is high,” it says. However, until more data is accumulated (on conservation trends and protection and management aspects), and given the number and level of threats that this property faces, its conservation outlook is still assessed as of significant concern, says the report.

Older than the Himalayan mountains, the Western Ghats, spread over Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, represents geomorphic features of immense importance with unique biophysical and ecological processes. The report says each of the 39 component parts of the property has its own management system and protective measures that vary throughout this complex serial site that stretches over a distance of some 1,600km from north to south.

“There is a priority need to articulate a clear overarching management framework that harmonizes policy and management practise across the various clusters and states. Functional corridors that assure wildlife movement and ecological connectivity between the clusters of component protected areas are also required,” it says.

The global World Heritage Outlook in 2017 remains similar to 2014, with a positive conservation outlook (“good” or “good with some concerns”) for 64% of sites, “significant concern” for 29% and “critical” status for 7%.

These results are for the 241 natural World Heritage sites listed as of November 2017,including new sites which have been inscribed on the World Heritage List since the previous report.

What is the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Third Amendment) Bill, 2017?

What is the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Third Amendment) Bill, 2017?
What is the new amendment about?
The government seeks to repeal the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993, and has introduced The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Third Amendment) Bill, 2017, to accord constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes. The Bill, passed by Lok Sabha last week, will insert Article 338B into the Constitution after Articles 338 and 338A which deal with the National Commissions for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) respectively. The proposed Article 338B states: “There shall be a Commission for the socially and educationally backward classes to be known as the National Commission for Backward Classes.” The government had earlier proposed that a National Commission for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes should replace the NCBC; however, after objections by OBC leaders, it decided against a change of nomenclature.
How does making the NCBC a constitutional body help?
Under the NCBC Act, the Commission merely has the power to recommend inclusion or exclusion of communities in the OBC list. The new Bill, once passed by Parliament, will allow it to look into all matters regarding the welfare and development of backward classes, as well as to investigate complaints. Currently, the Scheduled Castes Commission, which looks into cases of atrocities against Dalits, is also in charge of hearing grievances from OBCs — which mostly pertain to the non-implementation of reservations in jobs and educational institutes. The amended Bill will give the Commission powers equivalent to that of a civil court. It will be able to summon any person, ask for a document or public record, and receive evidence on affidavits. Union and state governments will have to consult the Commission on all significant policy matters affecting the socially and educationally backward classes. The Commission, which will have a chairperson, vice-chairperson and 3 members, will regulate its own proceedings.
So why has the Bill become contentious?
The Bill makes Parliament the final authority on inclusion of communities in the OBC list and, therefore, takes away the authority of states which can now send requests to the NCBC — which, however, may or may not forward them to the union government. Until now, the NCBC’s recommendations with regard to inclusions and exclusions in the list are binding on the government. Lok Sabha passed the Bill on April 10. However, when it was placed before Rajya Sabha, several members said such an important constitutional amendment could not be approved without proper study. As per the demand of the Upper House, the Bill was referred to a Select Committee. The 25-member Committee, headed by BJP member Bhupender Yadav, will submit its report during the Monsoon Session. However, this also means that there would be no NCBC in place unless the Bill is passed, as the term of the last member of the NCBC ended on February 13 and no appointments have been made since then in anticipation of the new Bill.
Will the new NCBC allow the inclusion of Jats, Marathas, Patels, etc. who have been demanding OBC status?
The demands have intensified especially after 2010, when OBC reservation was introduced in educational institutions. In 2014, in the wake of an agitation by Jats in Haryana, Delhi and UP, the union government went against the NCBC decision and included the community for 9 states in the Central List of OBCs — but the Centre’s decision was quashed by the Supreme Court. Once Parliament gets the final authority to make changes to the OBC list, it is unlikely the NCBC would be able to take any call on the matter on its own.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF OBC RESERVATIONS
The Kalelkar Commission, set up in 1953, was the first to identify backward classes other than the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at the national level. Its conclusion that caste is an important measure of backwardness was rejected on the ground that it had failed to apply more objective criteria such as income and literacy to determine backwardness.
The Mandal Commission report of 1980 estimated the OBC population at 52% and classified 1,257 communities as backward. It recommended increasing the existing quotas, which were only for SC/ST, from 22.5% to 49.5% to include the OBCs. A decade later, its recommendations were implemented in government jobs, a move that sparked major agitations.
To assuage the anti-reservation protesters, the P V Narasimha Rao government in 1991 introduced a 10% quota for the “economically backward sections” among the forward castes. The Supreme Court struck this down in the Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case, where it held that the Constitution recognised only social and educational — and not economic — backwardness.
The apex court, however, held reservation for OBCs as valid and directed that the creamy layer of OBC (those earning over a specified income) should not avail reservation facilities. The overall reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs was capped at 50%. Based on the order, the central government reserved 27% of seats in union civil posts and services, to be filled through direct recruitment, for OBCs. The quotas were subsequently enforced in central government educational institutions.

What is the new amendment about?
The government seeks to repeal the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993, and has introduced The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Third Amendment) Bill, 2017, to accord constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes. The Bill, passed by Lok Sabha last week, will insert Article 338B into the Constitution after Articles 338 and 338A which deal with the National Commissions for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) respectively. The proposed Article 338B states: “There shall be a Commission for the socially and educationally backward classes to be known as the National Commission for Backward Classes.” The government had earlier proposed that a National Commission for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes should replace the NCBC; however, after objections by OBC leaders, it decided against a change of nomenclature.
How does making the NCBC a constitutional body help?
Under the NCBC Act, the Commission merely has the power to recommend inclusion or exclusion of communities in the OBC list. The new Bill, once passed by Parliament, will allow it to look into all matters regarding the welfare and development of backward classes, as well as to investigate complaints. Currently, the Scheduled Castes Commission, which looks into cases of atrocities against Dalits, is also in charge of hearing grievances from OBCs — which mostly pertain to the non-implementation of reservations in jobs and educational institutes. The amended Bill will give the Commission powers equivalent to that of a civil court. It will be able to summon any person, ask for a document or public record, and receive evidence on affidavits. Union and state governments will have to consult the Commission on all significant policy matters affecting the socially and educationally backward classes. The Commission, which will have a chairperson, vice-chairperson and 3 members, will regulate its own proceedings.
So why has the Bill become contentious?
The Bill makes Parliament the final authority on inclusion of communities in the OBC list and, therefore, takes away the authority of states which can now send requests to the NCBC — which, however, may or may not forward them to the union government. Until now, the NCBC’s recommendations with regard to inclusions and exclusions in the list are binding on the government. Lok Sabha passed the Bill on April 10. However, when it was placed before Rajya Sabha, several members said such an important constitutional amendment could not be approved without proper study. As per the demand of the Upper House, the Bill was referred to a Select Committee. The 25-member Committee, headed by BJP member Bhupender Yadav, will submit its report during the Monsoon Session. However, this also means that there would be no NCBC in place unless the Bill is passed, as the term of the last member of the NCBC ended on February 13 and no appointments have been made since then in anticipation of the new Bill.
Will the new NCBC allow the inclusion of Jats, Marathas, Patels, etc. who have been demanding OBC status?
The demands have intensified especially after 2010, when OBC reservation was introduced in educational institutions. In 2014, in the wake of an agitation by Jats in Haryana, Delhi and UP, the union government went against the NCBC decision and included the community for 9 states in the Central List of OBCs — but the Centre’s decision was quashed by the Supreme Court. Once Parliament gets the final authority to make changes to the OBC list, it is unlikely the NCBC would be able to take any call on the matter on its own.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF OBC RESERVATIONS
The Kalelkar Commission, set up in 1953, was the first to identify backward classes other than the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at the national level. Its conclusion that caste is an important measure of backwardness was rejected on the ground that it had failed to apply more objective criteria such as income and literacy to determine backwardness.
The Mandal Commission report of 1980 estimated the OBC population at 52% and classified 1,257 communities as backward. It recommended increasing the existing quotas, which were only for SC/ST, from 22.5% to 49.5% to include the OBCs. A decade later, its recommendations were implemented in government jobs, a move that sparked major agitations.
To assuage the anti-reservation protesters, the P V Narasimha Rao government in 1991 introduced a 10% quota for the “economically backward sections” among the forward castes. The Supreme Court struck this down in the Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case, where it held that the Constitution recognised only social and educational — and not economic — backwardness.
The apex court, however, held reservation for OBCs as valid and directed that the creamy layer of OBC (those earning over a specified income) should not avail reservation facilities. The overall reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs was capped at 50%. Based on the order, the central government reserved 27% of seats in union civil posts and services, to be filled through direct recruitment, for OBCs. The quotas were subsequently enforced in central government educational institutions.

It’s the real economy

It’s the real economy
Corrective steps are needed to recover momentum in industrial growth

Feel-good news about the economy, the rating upgrade from Moody’s and, prior to that, the jump in India’s position in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business index, has dominated the headlines. The improvements reflect the increased attractiveness of India to investors and deserve applause. Although it seems out of sync with the reality on the ground, the international recognition doesn’t hurt.

As seen from abroad

The ratings by Moody’s are based on its assessment of the trajectory of governments’ abilities to service their debt over time. The higher rating for India signals a lower risk grade for the government’s debt and can lower the cost of raising it. Other borrowings benchmarked to the government’s also stand to benefit. The significance of the upgrade is also in its timing. In 2015, Moody’s had changed the outlook for India from ‘stable’ to ‘positive’, while keeping the rating unchanged. That outlook would have been difficult to defend at the upcoming review a few weeks down the line, had the rating upgrade not materialised. India could have been pushed back into the ‘stable’ outlook grade.

The likelihood of revisions by other rating agencies such as Standard & Poor’s has increased, but those upgrades will not be automatic. To bag them, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government will have to preserve its fiscal rectitude and encourage States to shun populism and adventurism.

Not so optimistic

As far as the growth on the ground is concerned, the performance of the economy in the first half of the current financial year will be known next week. The release of growth estimates for the second quarter, ending September 30, is due at the end of this month. Exports data and the quick estimates, the Index of Industrial Production (IIP), for April through September are out. The bellwether indicator for non-agricultural production, investment and consumption in the economy does not present a pretty picture.

News on the industrial output is bad. The growth rate weakened to 2.5%; it was 5.8% a year ago. On the manufacturing front, the news gets worse. The growth rate was 1.9%, pale when compared to 6.1% a year ago. It’s the same story with infrastructure and construction: the growth rate, 2%, is feeble compared to 4.9% in the first half of last year.

Consumer and investor sentiments haven’t got any better. Capital goods and consumer durables output was lower in the first half of the year than that in the same period last year, as production contracted. The only source of comfort have been consumer non-durables, the output of which grew to 7.4%, although at a slower pace than the 10-plus% growth a year ago.

So, the IIP indicates that the industrial sector is on extremely shaky ground. Festive and post-harvest season spending was expected to boost demand, but September remained a weak month. The hope now is that October, data for which are not out yet, will turn out to be better. The investment climate remains soured. The conditions do not seem conducive for job creation.

The industrial performance this year so far is so tepid that it is weaker than it had been in 2012-13, the worst year growth-wise under the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government. The GDP had grown at its slowest pace, 5.5%, that year in its 10-year tenure. The annual IIP growth had been 3.3%. It was 2.5% in the first six months of this year. Growth in every single major segment of the IIP — manufacturing, capital goods, consumer durables and infrastructure and construction — this year so far is weaker than it was in 2012-13. If corrective steps are not taken, at the current rate of loss in industrial growth momentum, this year may turn out to be worse than the UPA government’s policy paralysis phase.

The IIP’s coverage by design is limited to the organised sector. The disruption in the unorganised sector will be measured separately and become known only later. Just how much of a drag the industrial sector was on the economy’s overall growth remains to be seen. Other segments of the economy, agriculture and services particularly, are expected to outpace it.

On the export front

Exports had been showing encouraging signs of recovery, with double-digit growth. August and September were good months. But October notched up a small decline, so more data points are needed before it can be concluded that a sustainable recovery is under way. The decline is sharper in the employment-intensive sectors of leather, gems, jewellery, handicrafts, readymade apparel and carpets.

Exporters blame the break in the trend on a liquidity crunch owing to the infirmities in the goods and services tax (GST) system. They complain that their refund claims were not released for four months. Smaller firms with limited access to working capital have taken a body blow.

The growth crisis is of the NDA government’s own making. If demonetisation led to demand destruction, the GST rollout has had disastrous effects on the supply side. The twin shocks have compounded the problems of industry, big and small, that was already struggling with a slowdown. It’s time the real economy starts dominating the government’s agenda.

Manipur Sangai Festival,

Manipur Sangai Festival,
#upscpre2018
which is the biggest festival of the state. Celebrated for 10 days every November since 2010, this is the perfect showcase for the cultural diversity and richness of Manipur, comprising its various communities and beautiful social fabric. The food and culture, adventure sports and crafts, handlooms and universally-admired dance forms of Manipur cannot find a more appropriate setting.

Manipur is the capital of Indian sport. 
#The traditional sport of #Sagol Kangjei was the inspiration for modern polo. And here in Imphal is the oldest polo ground in the world.
# Huyen Langlon is a martial art that I believe deserves much greater international exposure.
As does #Yubi Lakpi, played with a greased coconut instead of a rugby ball. I have only mentioned a few of the many remarkable indigenous sports of Manipur. These are treasures that must be shared with the rest of the country and rest of the world.
Named after Manipur’s state animal, the brow-antlered Sangai deer, the Sangai Festival 2017 got underway on November 21 with the President of India Ram Nath Kovind set to inaugurate the 10-day long tourism extravaganza. Dubbed as the grandest festival of Manipur, the Sangai Festival showcases the tourism potential of the state in the field of arts & culture, handloom, handicrafts, indigenous sports, cuisine, music and adventure sports etc.