To know more about Pahlaj Nihalani, read this
Don’t ban “India’s Daughter” for its content, but do question it
“India’s Daughter”, the documentary on the girl we now know as Nirbhaya, has created a lot of controversy. Given what was out in the public domain about the documentary, we gave our view that based on those facts, it may not be advisable to ban it, but it may also be prudent not to air it on TV. There are numerous legal tangles that the documentary is facing, which we highlighted here.
The Documentary maker had declared on NDTV’s show that she believed “Most people in the society” think like the rapist. My objection was to this defamatory, unsubstantiated stereotyping, which I feared the documentary might propagate. And then I saw the damned video.
Firstly, let me come to how NDTV promoted this documentary:
“World Premiere”. “The Face of Evil, The Rapist speaks on Camera”. This is what NDTV stated in its posters and advertisements. Fact? in an hour-long documentary, the Rapist’s interview is shown only for 10 minutes odd! Quite a few people were worried that the Documentary is a platform for the Rapist, but it actually covers the entire incident, right from the victim’s background, the incident, the protests, the defence lawyers, the government reaction and the court’s verdict. What was essentially an attempt to chronicle this entire episode, was reduced to “RAPIST SPEAKS ON CAMERA” by NDTV. Why? TRPs STUPID!
My major beef (pun intended) with this documentary was that it might echo the film-maker’s views that most Indian men agree with the justifications place by the Rapist. The justifications and his views, were reported here by BBC. Again an attempt was made to portray that this documentary was focussed on the rapist’s views and how Indian males are in sync with him. As a male, I was outraged at this. Thankfully, I didn’t find any major stereotyping of Indian men as a whole in the documentary.
But I do have some problems with it. Firstly, I felt, Nirbhaya’s parents are being used. Their emotions are being used to make this documentary popular. Some would validly argue that this is needed to wake up the conscience of the viewers. But I am not in favour of exploitation of human misery. There was no need to make her mother say things which would make her cry on air. This is my personal opinion though, and certainly no cause to ban the documentary.
Secondly, the video gives an insight into the background of the rapists. How they are from poor families, how they have been mistreated by luck and society. “This boy had suffered endless misery in life, he was a child in need of care and protection, and was a typical profile of a child, who had to be like this in a way“, these are the words of Mr Amod Kant, founder of the NGO Prayas, for the Juvenile Rapist. Is this some sort of twisted justification? When this is heard by millions of juveniles who are also facing “endless misery”, will it have a negative impact in their minds? Will it give them a “victim mentality”? This point may very well be needed to understand the psyche of Rapists, but beam it out to millions of uninformed viewers? I am not sure.
We are also shown the abject poverty in which the families of the Rapists are living, as if to re-inforce the above point. Then we also see the wife of one of the Rapists. She believes her husband is innocent, and also asks what will happen to her if he is killed. We are shown the 2 year old child of the rapist too. The wife then says if her husband is hanged, she will kill herself and her child. I don’t know what the intention behind this was but it could evoke sympathy in the minds of some, and may make some of the soft-hearted feel the Rapists deserve another chance.
In another part of the documentary, the Rapist interviewed, repeatedly claims he is innocent. He firmly asserts that he was at the steering for the entire incident and had no role to play in the actual rape. There is no attempt in the video to counter this, since even the courts found strong DNA evidence against him. It is also alleged that there was attempt to mow down Nirbhaya after the incident, and if indeed he was the driver, he may be responsible for this too. By not highlighting this, I wonder if an uninformed viewer might get the impression that this poor boy, from weaker section of the society, who was only driving the bus (maybe under coercion) has been unjustly victimized.
This feeling maybe compounded by the one of the Defence lawyer’s statements where he alleges that cases of Rape, Robbery, Murder are pending against more than 250 MPs, but none of these cases are fast-tracked. Soon the rapist also sings a similar tune of what-aboutism by raising other gruesome rapes and asking “why me?”. While the point of this might have been to show the apathy towards sexual crimes around us, Can this again be a “morale booster” to those suffering “endless misery” that they are being unjustly victimized?
There is also a repeated attempt to criticize the death penalty. Amod Kant says “we are not that kind of country” which believes in Death Penalty and similar punishments. The Rapist’s wife also makes similar noises. The Rapist himself gives a logic that if indeed they are hanged, in future rapists will be motivated to kill their victims to silence them.
Of course there is a lot of good too in the documentary. It shows the entire incident, it generally doesn’t attempt to stereotype Indian men, It shows the twisted depraved statements of the Rapist and the Lawyers, shows the unprecedented protests, the rather swift (by Indian standards) judicial process.
To conclude, It is unfortunate how the Indian Media promoted the documentary, because it certainly caused a bit of misplaced outrage in quite a few, me included. At the same time there will be some who will still not like the documentary because it can be very chilling and disturbing at times.
And then there are the concerns which I have raised above, how it unintentionally might embolden potential rapists rather than equipping the society with ways of combating this menace. Does it deserve a Ban? Ideally no, But I also don’t know if it’s suitable for viewing on TV by anybody and everybody. This is of course provided it fulfils all the Legal conditions. Until then, it shouldn’t be aired, nobody is above the law, not rapists, not documentary makers.
The legal violations by the “India’s Daughter” documentary
Yesterday we highlighted that although there is a lot of opposition to the “India’s Daughter”, the documentary, there is no pressing need to use the constitutional provisions to block the it’s release. There were however other concerns, which needed to be addressed and it was upto the channels to decide on the social impact of such a documentary. However, today some legal aspects have also come up.
According to the Home Minister’s statement, The Ministry of Home Affairs, in July 2013 had given an NOC to shoot the said documentary. Subsequently, Tihar Jail authorities also gave the required permissions, subject to fulfilment of the following conditions:
(i) Prior approval of jail authorities is to be taken for publishing the research paper or for releasing the documentary film which is being made for purely social purposes without any commercial interest as conveyed.
(ii)To interview only such convicted prisoners who give written consent.
(iii)The complete unedited footage of shoot in the Tihar Jail premises will be shown to the jail authorities to ensure there is no breach of Prison security.
On 7th April 2014, once the Jail Authorities realised that the conditions had been violated, a legal notice was sent to return the unedited footage within 15 days and also not to show the film as it violates the permission conditions. Subsequently, the documentary film was shown to the jail authorities where it was also noticed that the film shown was the edited version and not the unedited as per permission conditions. Hence, they were requested to provide full copy of the unedited film shoot for further review by the authorities and that they were asked not to release/screen the documentary till it is approved by the authorities.
As per this report, a notice was sent to BBC in November 2014. There was no reply to this notice from BBC. As of March 3rd, Tihar jail officials were drafting a second notice to BBC, highlighting the conditions that have not been met. There are questions whether the documentary is still being used only for “social” and “non-commercial” use, as per the initial conditions, agreed by the film-makers.
As things stand, The documentary makers haven’t shown the unedited version of the documentary to the Jail Authorities, as promised by them. Hence they don’t have the permission of the Jail authorities. As mentioned above, there is also doubt whether the documentary is being used only for “social” purposes. Yet, in gross violations of the conditions, BBC has already aired the documentary in United Kingdom and it is now available on YouTube.
Showing “India’s Daughter” documentary risks doing more harm than good to the society
You can almost always be sure that Arnab Goswami will reduce a topic to binaries and dumb down a discussion, but you can also be sure that on many occasions Arnab touches the right notes.
In the latest incident, Arnab has rightly termed the documentary India’s Daughter as “voyeurism” by TV news channels like NDTV and BBC, for it appears to serve no purpose other than that.
The defenders of the documentary are primarily of two types – first type saying that this should be allowed for the sake of free speech, and the second type saying that it’s important to know how a rapist thinks so that the society can tackle them.
Both appear fair arguments and you can’t reject them summarily. However, here is where nuances come into play, which unfortunately are not allowed by Arnab Goswami when he rejects these arguments.
The first argument is totally fair. Yes, one may argue that the documentary can be disallowed as the constitution puts curbs on the free speech subjected to “decency and morality” (Article 19.2.IV) and “incitement to an offence” (Article 19.2.VII).
A rapist’s views are surely against “decency and morality” and also can cause “incitement to an offence” when criminally minded hear his justifications, but these should not be used to ban the documentary.
OpIndia.com believes that there is no pressing need to use the constitutional provisions to block the documentary – and there, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and Arnab Goswami are wrong and overreacting.
Possibly some other technicalities are also being used to block the documentary, such as lack of clearances from authorities and objections of Tihar jail; still, a demand to block or ban the documentary is not right.
However, the second argument, that the documentary will help the society by analyzing a rapist’s mind is deeply flawed and reflects a lack of nuanced and detailed analysis.
Nikhil Mehra, a lawyer practicing in Supreme Court, explained in a series of tweets last night, why this exercise on a public forum was not only “tasteless” but “dangerous”.
He agreed that analyzing a rapist’s mind was an integral and necessary part of the entire process of combating the problem of rape. However, he cautioned that this was best done by experts like the law enforcement agencies and trained sociologists and psychiatrists.
Mr. Mehra argues that when a rapist’s deeply misogynist, regressive, and violent views are aired on a public platform, people who are similarly inclined in views find a support and validation for their criminal thought process.
Thus airing of the documentary could embolden potential rapists rather than equipping the society with ways on combating this menace i.e. it will give voyeuristic pleasures to many rather than sensitizing the general public.
Not only this, since a particular incident (the 16 December Delhi gangrape) is being highlighted, some have pointed out that this risks incorrect or partially correct portrayal of a rapist.
The documentary paints one of the rapists as “the face of evil”. But as twitter user @NishSwish points out, why look for one villain whom we can conveniently paint as evil? The other rapists are as much evil as him. In fact, the juvenile rapist was reported to be the most brutal and inhuman of them all.
And what about cops who don’t file FIRs in rape cases, or other authorities who suppress a rape victim from seeking justice. Are they not faces of evil, she rightly asks. She further cautions that this approach may reinforce class bias and incorrect perception in the society about rape incidents.
After all, most rapists are not random strangers like bus drivers who turn out to be cruel and brutal. The Delhi gangrape incident was a ‘sensational exception’. Perhaps the society needs to be sensitized more about ‘faces of evil’ that are living next door, or even are part of the family, than focussing on one incident to find a villain.
What about likes of Tarun Tejpal or Asaram Bapu? They are as much ‘the face of evil’ as this rapist interviewed for the documentary. By focussing only on this rapist, the society could as much think that only poor bus drivers hailing from north India are ‘faces of evil’.
Similarly, blogger and writer Purba Ray argues in her column that this documentary risks painting every Indian man as a rapist rather than sensitizing the society about rape issues. To many, like journalist Shekhar Gupta, who are claiming that Indian men are uncomfortable as the documentary shows “mirror” to them, Ms. Ray has a very valid argument to offer:
Approaching a convicted rapist for his views on women, using it to mirror Indian men’s attitude towards women, ends up stereotyping our men as the libidinous things who have nothing better to do than rape and subjugate women. It’s like approaching a hooligan English soccer fan for his views on Britain’s sporting culture or asking Bill Cosby or Rolf Harris for their views on sexual harassment.
To sum up, the documentary risks doing more harm than good to the society. And it will not be wrong to call it “voyeuristic”. We deserve better.
Sorry Mr. Pahlaj Nihalani, you don’t deserve to be the chief of Censor Board
I am not a cinema expert. I am not a cinema intellectual who can comment on nitty-gritty and punctuations of cinema. I am just a normal cinema viewer who takes out some time for out of ordinary office life to watch a few movies.
Last month, OpIndia.com team discussed the members of previous Censor Board – Leela Samson, Ira Bhaskar and Anjum Rajabali. A new Board was elected under the chairmanship of Pahlaj Nihalani.
After Leela Samson was targeted for her partisan behavior and connections with Congress, it was expected that Pahlaj Nihalani will not only be targeted, but also be used as a conduit to attack the government. And Pahlaj Nihalani didn’t disappoint his rivals.
To be very honest, I would not comment on films done by Pahlaj Nihalani because personally I feel that those are not even discussion worthy. I am more bothered about his recent statements, interviews and opinions.
A few days after being inducted in the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) Board, Pahlaj sent a list of cuss-word which will be banned by Censor Board. Even the government conveyed a displeasure with the list; On February 25, Anurag Kashyap met I&B minister Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore, and after the meeting, he expressed satisfaction with the proceedings. However, the harm was done.
While official statements given by Pahlaj Nihalani are spreading sense of despair, his interviews are putting many questions on the current Censor Board. Pahlaj Nihalani shot a self-targeting missile when he targeted Sharmila Tagore for passing films like Omkara and Gangs of Wasseypur. The so-called cinema stalwart probably went with an abuse-detector, closed his eyes, put fingers inside his ears, counted the number of times the abuse-detector beeped after the movie, and concluded his wisdom.
In an interview to Dipti Nagpaul, The Indian Express, when Pahlaj Nihalani was asked his idea of a good film, he said, “One that can be viewed with the family, the focus should be on the story, the emotions and dialogues, not the craft”, he also added, “like my film Aankhen, a good film should either entertain or impart values.”
I will not comment on Aankhen, because I have already said that I don’t find his movie discussion worthy, but the Panchtantra-motivated-values-seeking Censor Board chief shocked me with his inept single dimension judgment of “good” cinema. Cinema has evolved from the trivial definition of “mirror of society” to expression of anything which can be imagined with creativity and skills, but Pahlaj Nihalani is still sauntering in the cultural lanes created by Sooraj Barjatya where everyone, including dog and cats, are happy family members. Mr. Nihalani is supported by team members like Ashoke Pandit, who boasts about intellect required to head a cultural board: “An official from the railways board cannot head a cultural institution”, but declares AIB as a porn show.
I feel bad for art and cinema in India. Cinema is not engineering in which screws and bolts need to be fixed in particular order and SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) have to be followed. Cinema spans infinite possibilities of expressions. International cinema is Neorealism, Nouvelle Vague, La Nouvelle Vague, and India, where Parallel Cinema movement started in 1950, is regressing to the happy-ending-high-moral format. As earlier mentioned by bwoyblunder, “We don’t need preachers or priests in the Censor board, to uphold whatever their idea of “Indian Culture” is, but we need artists, who can understand what another artist is trying to convey. The board must respect the Freedom of Expression of an artist, and must allow it within the realms of the law. Wherever there is a law (like Section 294) which can be misused, the Censor board should take a progressive stance. We don’t need shackles, just guidelines.”
Pahlaj Nihalani is an easy target for the media. He will be regularly targeted for his views on religion, sex, violence and ethos in cinema. Sadly, more than anything else, cinema will suffer. Chandra Prakash Dwivedi, who is also a part of the Censor Board, is much mature and logical than Pahlaj Nihalani or Ashoke Pandit. His interviews and statements inject hope and positivity. It would be better for cinema and the image of Censor Board if he is appointed as the chief of Censor Board.
Beef ban in India – a reality check
It’s still not very clear exactly what has been banned in Maharashtra i.e. whether its the slaughter of calves, bulls, bullocks etc. Some news reports suggest only Bullocks may be up for slaughter now. This has already been linked to “Hindutva” and “Brahminical” tendencies by some of the usual suspects:
#BeefBan isn’t about preventing cruelty to animals, it’s about imposing Brahminical culture on all. 1/n
— Kavita Krishnan (@kavita_krishnan) March 3, 2015
With the beef ban, the shameful return of brahmanical #Peshwai culture in #Maharashtra under the BJP-Sena Government. pic.twitter.com/LvtGQPr6RO — Mario da Penha (@mlechchha) March 3, 2015
But, we do know what is already banned in other states of India. States like Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and even Jammu & Kashmir have a blanket ban of ANY type of bovine slaughter. Are these states, especially Jammu & Kashmir prone to “Hindutva” or “Brahminical” forces? Also, most of the acts are in force for a long time. While the merits of such a ban are debatable, it is surely a bit hypocritical to make this a religious or casteist debate.
Prohibition of cow slaughter is a Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Article 48 of the Constitution. It reads, “The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle”. Any attempt to give it a communal angle is not sustainable. Also, Even Mahatma Gandhi, was against Cow Slaughter. Someone should remind this to Mr Tushar Gandhi, who is the great-grand son of Mahatma Gandhi:
Beef Ban in Maharashtra is anti Dalit, Christians and Muslims.
— Tushar A. Gandhi (@TusharG) March 3, 2015
| State | Legal for slaughter | Illegal for slaughter | Act |
|---|---|---|---|
| JAMMU & KASHMIR | NONE | Voluntary slaughter of any bovine animal such as ox, bull, cow or calf | THE RANBIR PENAL CODE, 1932 |
| DELHI | Buffalo | Slaughter of all agricultural cattle is totally prohibited. | THE DELHI AGRICULTURAL CATTLE PRESERVATION ACT, 1994 |
| HARYANA | NONE | Slaughter of cow (and its progeny) totally prohibited. | THE PUNJAB PROHIBITION OF COW SLAUGHTER ACT, 1955 |
| HIMACHAL PRADESH | NONE | Slaughter of cow (and its progeny) totally prohibited. | THE PUNJAB PROHIBITION OF COW SLAUGHTER ACT, 1955 |
| PUNJAB | NONE | Slaughter of cow (and its progeny) totally prohibited. | THE PUNJAB PROHIBITION OF COW SLAUGHTER ACT, 1955 |
| RAJASTHAN | NONE | All bovine animals (includes cow, calf, heifer, bull or bullocks) | THE RAJASTHAN BOVINE ANIMAL (PROHIBITION OF SLAUGHTER AND REGULATION OF TEMPORARY MIGRATION OR EXPORT) ACT, 1995 |
| ASSAM | Slaughter of all cattle allowed on ‘fit-for-slaughter’ certificate | Slaughter of any cattle without ‘fit-for-slaughter’ certificate | THE ASSAM CATTLE PRESERVATION ACT, 1950 |
| BIHAR | Slaughter of bull or bullock of over 15 years of age or has become permanently incapacitated for work or breeding due to injury, deformity or any incurable disease. | Slaughter of cow and calf, Bulls or bullocks totally prohibited except as stated previously | THE BIHAR PRESERVATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF ANIMALS ACT, 1955 |
| GUJARAT | Slaughter of buffaloes permitted on certain conditions | Slaughter of cow, calf, bull or bullock totally prohibited. | THE BOMBAY ANIMAL PRESERVATION ACT, 1954 (APPLIED TO GUJARAT ) |
| ORISSA | Slaughter of bull, bullock on fit-for-slaughter certificate | Slaughter of cow totally prohibited. | THE ORISSA PREVENTION OF COW SLAUGHTER ACT, 1960 |
| UTTAR PRADESH | Slaughter of bull or bullock permitted on ‘fit-for-slaughter’ certificate | Slaughter of cow totally prohibited. | THE UTTAR PRADESH PREVENTION OF COW SLAUGHTER ACT, 1955 |
| GOA | Cow, only if the animal is suffering pain or contagious disease or for medical research. Bulls, Bullocks on on obtaining a "fit-for-slaughter" certificate | Any other Cow | THE GOA ANIMAL PRESERVATION ACT, 1995 & The Goa, Daman & Diu Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1978 |
(Above information is available here)
Prashant Bhushan exposes the truths of AAP – A TL;DR
Electoral defeats often lead to splintering of a party into various groups who blame each other for various debacles. But in AAP, we have a party which has registered an astounding victory, and is still battling with inner-party differences. Is it because the problems are too deep-seated for even a landslide win to wipe out? Prashant Bhushan in his letter, has made the following allegations:
1. Transparency and Accountability
- AAP has not put their accounts online, only put donations, not expenses. This is against the stand of transparency taken by AAP
- Neither Decisions nor Minutes of meetings of the National Executive (NE) nor of the PAC are available on the website
- Minutes of such meetings are not even maintained
- Although as per AAP’s constitution candidates are to be approved by PAC, in Delhi, not even bio-datas of the candidates were shared with PAC and such selection was done by the DECG (Delhi Elections Campaign Group)
- Even till November 2014, attempts were made by AAP to seek Congress support in Delhi, in violation of the decisions taken at the National Executive earlier
- Several decisions of the National Disciplinary Committee have not been implemented
- The NE and PAC do not meet regularly and members are not informed of the meetings if any
- The NE and PAC lack both regional and gender balance
2. Inner Party Democracy and Swaraj
- List of members/volunteers has not been prepared till date and hence no elections have ever taken place.
- Volunteer meetings in Delhi were a free for all where anybody could walk in
- When people raised objections to “importing of candidates from BJP and Congress”, they were “silenced brutally”
- Candidates were allowed to contest even after they were found illegally storing liquor and openly declaring on video that its OK to lure voters
- One candidate was made a fall guy for putting up communally sensitive posters
- Kejriwal over-ruled the NE’s decision to allow various State Units to contest state elections thus making a “mockery of the principles of democracy and Swaraj”
- One person centric campaign in Delhi is against the principles of Swaraj and leads to a “supremo controlled party”
3. Policies of the Party
- Reports of 30 Expert Committees and over a 100 experts, on policies of the party have been ignored for 2 years
- This results in Volunteers and Spokespersons often not knowing how to react to important issues
4. Funds of the Party
- There is no systematic planning of how huge donations received are to be spent
- Money is spent arbitrarily by unauthorized people due to the lack of empowered committee or decision-making system
- Some volunteers are paid but vast majority of them are unpaid
5. Unethical means and practices
- Karan Singh was expelled from the party on the basis of fraudulent SMSs under the name of AAVAAM and Singh’s pleas for investigation were ignored
- Eventually by Police Investigation it was known that Deepak Chowdhary (who had nothing to do with AVAM) had fraudulently sent the SMS, yet no action was taken against him
- A communal poster was put up by the party, and Amanatullah (now MLA) was forced to take the blame
Budget 2015 – A step in the right direction
Warning: I would like to state at the outset that I am not an economist by training and don’t have the slightest pretense of being one. Readers are more than welcome to post constructive criticism in the comments section.
The Modi Sarkaar was elected with much fanfare in 2014 on the promise of a complete overhaul of the status-quo and stem the fiscal stagnation that had set in during the last days of UPA-2. The buzzword among the business community was ‘big-bang’ reforms which would unleash the nascent growth potential unlike never before. In that respect, finance minister Jaitley’s first full budget didn’t quite live up to the dramatic hype, but it was far from a damp squib. First and foremost, the FM should be congratulated for not getting carried away by the election victory in 2014, the extreme expectations of the investor community post that victory, and most importantly, the recent electoral drubbing in Delhi. The budget (which includes Suresh Prabhu’s rail budget too) bears the quintessential hallmark of the Modi Govt so far, that of balancing economic pragmatism and deriving tangible and achievable solutions for existing problems.
The major takeaway was the reduction of corporate taxes from 30% to 25%. This was a brave step to take for the FM in this internet age, where the default position of a large fraction of the chattering class is to hypocritically be opposed to anything corporate. The 30% rate was among some of the highest in Asia, and also higher when compared to the average corporate tax rate in the world.
This “reduction” will be copled with removal of exemptions enjoyed by Corporates. These exemptions are often matter of litigation and removing them will boost confidence in Tax regime. This move is sure to boost growth over the next few years, more so considering that FM Jaitley has managed to boost investor sentiment by keeping the fiscal deficit within target for this year (2014-2015), though admittedly the 3 percent target has been pushed forward by an year (2017-2018).
The 70,000 crore increase in infrastructure investment, backed by Suresh Prabhu’s commitment to fulfill existing rail projects, will aid in India becoming a very attractive investment destination in the next few years. All of this will translate into more jobs, a key requirement for poverty alleviation as it’s impossible for agriculture and Government projects to provide most of the employment, particularly in the manufacturing and service sector.
Despite the naysayers, the BJP Government has also shown far more commitment in stemming black money than any Government before and this has already resulted in a sizeable sum of money recovered by the Government. (). This was also reflected in the budget where Mr. Jaitely has promised tougher anti black money measures. It is of course possible that the law could merely be a paper tiger, but the success or failure of this law can only be known after a few years.
Mr. Jaitley has also shown that he is willing to empower the states, indeed at the expense of the centre, in order to consolidate federalism and improve the delivery of welfare schemes. This does come with its share of pros and cons, but broadly speaking, competitive federalism fueled by large intra-state migration, would necessitate that state Governments would have to be more alert than before to the needs of their citizens and not depend excessively on special packages from the centre.
The NDA Government has long been considered by its opponents as being too pro-corporate and too anti-poor. Thus, it was unlikely that even from a pessimistic, political angle, welfare schemes would have seen a drastic cut in this budget. Indeed, Mr. Jaitley increased the MNREGA budget by 5000 crores, despite PM Modi tearing into the UPA’s pet scheme just a day earlier . This might seem a bit counter-intuitive, but it is clear that the Government does not want to completely abolish MNREGA, but streamline and make it more efficient (coupled with the Jan Dhan Yojna) which if executed properly, would actually result in sustainable asset creation for the Indian state.
The long-term vision of a universal social security system is also a very good one, the success of which of course will depend a lot on the Jan Dhan Yojna and the Aadhar card. The other steps taken by Mr. Jaitley such as complete exemption for Swachch Bharat Abhiyaan, the establishment of the MUDRA bank, the different insurance schemes, appropriating unclaimed PPF/EPF funds into a senior citizens fund; are all welcome and while seemingly simple in the letter, will go a long way in actually providing tangible results.
The one major negative point that sticks out quite strongly though is the unchanged IT rates. This is bound to pinch the middle-class a bit, more so considering that the service tax has increased from 12.36 to 14%. While this would most probably be the rate when the GST is introduced in 2016, and there is bound to be an increase in the IT limit then, the immediate pinch on the middle-class consumer which is the overwhelming base for large parts of the service sector, could have been addressed better by increasing the exemption limit by at least Rs. 25,000. Naively speaking, one would also expect that the service sector would also be hurt a bit in this fiscal because of this policy of the Government. Though Mr. Jaitley claims that an individual tax payer can save up to Rs. 4,44,200, this is nothing but the quintessential Indian Jugaad and while benefiting certain sectors, would not result in cold, hard cash in the hands of the individual.
Mr. Jaitley was forced to walk a financial tightrope this year with very little room for manoeuvring. His policies have largely addressed all sections of society, some more so than others. The broad vision of the Government is sound, and its vision long-term. Some of the more debatable ideas of the Modi Government requires adequate backing by the states and the overall bureaucracy, and will take time to implement. Time will tell if 2015 was the beginning of a sustained Achche Din for the Indian state.
-Robert Barker
Avijit Roy hacked to death by Islamic Fundamentalists – Je Suis Hypocrite
On February 26th, 2015, writer Avijit Roy was hacked to death assailants possible linked to the Jamat E Islami on the streets of Dhaka. The attack on Roy and his wife—who is injured and in hospital—was not very different from that on cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, the weekly satirical magazine, in Paris in January. What was different was the outrage. While huge support from all corners of the globe poured in for Charlie Hebdo on social and mainstream media, Roy’s murder has neither been covered well in the mainstream media at least in India nor is there is a similar outrage on social media.
I am leaving aside mainstream media because they are generally known for selective outrage and coverage. This is especially true of the Indian mainstream media. What has disappointed me more is the relatively muted reaction to Roy’s murder on social media, especially in India.
Alright, not many of us, including me, were aware of Roy’s work before his death. But how many of us in India were aware of Charlie Hebdo before the Paris attacks? And yet there were many Je Suis Charlies. Does Roy’s murder—he was killed for a reason not very different from that for Charlie Hebdo cartoonist—not deserve similar reaction? Why no Je Suis Avijit trending on social media as yet?
I do not expect much outrage from the west although Roy was an American citizen and was visiting his native Bangladesh when he was attacked. The west is known for double standards when it comes terror attacks. Notice how they always speak of September 11th, Madrid bombings, London underground bombings but never about 26/11 attacks in Mumbai. Was it not a terror attack? In fact, Mumbai suffered three major terror attacks between 1993 and 2008.
No, I am not worried about the muted reaction from western commentators or individuals on social media, who were outraged by Charlie Hebdo. One kind of expects this. It is obvious. For them life of a western citizen is more valuable than the life of a citizen from India or Bangladesh. In Roy’s case it is even more shocking because, as I noted earlier, Roy was an American citizen. As I am writing this, I am yet to find any comments from the U.S. President Barack Obama. He was very quick to react to the murder of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemstov, who was shot dead on Saturday morning. But he is yet to react—I haven’t come across any statements or a tweet—condemning the attack on a American citizen.
But more than the west’s reaction, more than Obama’s reaction, my concern is the relatively muted reaction in India. Many Je Suis Charlies sprung up after the Paris attack. As I am writing this, I don’t see a similar reaction to Roy’s murder. This tells me that either the Je Suis Charlies were just following a popular twitter trend, or to them events in Paris matter more than the events closer home.
Don’t get me wrong. The reaction to the Paris attacks was warranted. But do the events in Paris in any way pose a direct threat to India? No they don’t. But events in Bangladesh do. There are a lot of misconceptions about Bangladesh in India, one being that like Pakistan, it is a Muslim state. It is not. It is a secular state. Islam is by far the largest religion in the country but even the United Nations sees the country as “mainly moderate Muslim democratic country.”
Bangladesh is also part of the Next Eleven or N-11, a term coined by former Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’ Neill. O’Neill, who also came up with famous BRICs group of countries, said in a research paper that Bangladesh along with the 10 other countries in the report could become the world’s largest economies in this century.
Of course, Bangladesh, like any developing country, has its fair share of problems. The country is marred by extreme poverty and corruption. But there is also a growing threat of Islamist extremism. This is why Indians should be worried about the attack on Roy. While there have been protests over Roy’s death, highlighting the fact that Bangladesh remains a largely tolerant country, Islamic extremism is a growing menace. Rising extremism in a moderate Muslim country in the neighborhood is more worrying than an attack in Paris. It should have got more coverage on the media. It commanded a stronger reaction. Indeed, according to stories floating on social media, Farabi Shafiur Rahman, who had threatened to kill Avijit Roy, has fled into West Bengal. The same state that in 2013 saw 16 Islamic organizations hold a rally in support of Jamat E Islami, which is not just linked to the murder of Roy but whose top leader was also involved in war crimes in 1971.
The relatively muted reaction so far does come as a shock, especially after the outpouring of support for Charlie Hebdo. To all the Je Suis Charlies in India, if your support for Charlie Hebdo was more to do with following a Twitter trend then for your information, the most recent trend on Twitter is #The Dress. To those that have been selective in their outrage, you should consider changing your Twitter handle to Je Suis Hypocrite.
Budget 2015 is over, but did the Government fulfill the promises of Budget 2014?
What is a Budget? It is a set of announcements which the Government makes, and proposes to implement in the next one year. While we make a huge hue and cry over these announcements, very few people actually see if these promises were actually implemented, and if so, did the yield the desired results.
@c_aashish took us through the latest Budget. We now take a look at some of the key declarations from Budget 2014, and see if the Government fulfilled its commitments. We have only included those proposals which can be realistically achieved in a year. Certain ideas like “Smart Cities” may take even a decade to fully materialise given the enormous work needed, hence they have been omitted.
| Promise | Status |
|---|---|
| Solution to GST Deadlock | Achieved |
| FDI in Defence | Achieved |
| FDI in Construction | Achieved |
| Integrated eBiz platform | Achieved |
| Financial Inclusion Mission for all households | Achieved |
| Providing Stable Taxation Regime | Achieved |
| FDI in Insurance | Not achieved |
| Impasse in Coal Sector | Partially Achieved |
| Overhauling the subsidy regime | Partially Achieved |
A. 20 MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENTS : 9 Achieved, 9 Partially Achieved/Work in Progress, 2 Not Achieved
1. Expenditure Management Commission
Status: Partially Achieved – In August 2014, the commission was set up, headed by former RBI governor Bimal Jalan. It was scheduled to give its Interim report before Budget 2015, and it did submit the same in January 2015. It will be interesting to see what inputs Jaitley gets from this report and how he implements the same.
2. Overhauling the subsidy regime, including food and petroleum subsidies, and making it more targeted
Status: Partially Achieved – Modified Direct Benefit Transfer to LPG consumers called Pahal was launched in 54 districts on 15.11.2014. It has been launched in the remaining districts of the country from 1.1.2015.
3. Solution to GST Deadlock
Status: Achieved – By negotiating with states and by accepting their demands, the Central Government came to a consensus on the GST bill and it was finally tabled before the parliament in December 2014. The promise of ironing out differences has been achieved, and now the economy is waiting for the roll-out of the GST Act as scheduled.
4. Providing Stable Taxation Regime:
Status: Achieved – High Level Committee has been constituted to scrutinize all fresh cases arising out of the retrospective amendments of 2012. Also, now notified Resident applicants can apply for “Advance Ruling” on tax issues, to avoid litigations.
5. FDI in Defence
Status: Achieved – In line with the “Make-In-India” focus, In August 2014, Government notified the increase in FDI cap for Defence upto 49% through approval route.
6. FDI in Insurance
Status: Not achieved The government has promulgated an Ordinance to increase FDI to 49%, but has failed to get it ratified in the Rajya Sabha until now.
7. FDI in Construction
Status: Achieved – In December 2014, The Government announced changes in the norms for FDI in Construction, in an effort to attract more money into the country to build new hotels, housing and townships.
8. e-VISA
Status: Achieved – Tourist Visa on Arrival enabled with Electronic Travel Authorization has been extended to citizens of 43 countries in the first phase on 9 designated airports from 27.11.2014.
9. Decision on unclaimed amounts with PPF etc
Status: Not Achieved- A Committee has been constituted, which was supposed to give its report by December 2014 but till now no report has come. It has held two meetings on 26.9.2014 and 29.12.2014.
10. Finance to 5 lakh landless farmers
Status: Partially Achieved- In November 2014, RBI issued detailed guidelines to banks, to facilitate loans to landless farmers. A State wise target for financing 5 lakh Joint Farming Groups through Joint Liability Group mode financing has been communicated. Whether 5,00,000 such farmers eventually availed this facility is not known, but the set-up for the same was definitely put in place.
11. Integrated eBiz platform
Status: Achieved – On 19th February, the “eBiz Portal” was launched by the Government with integration of the 13 priority services. Read more here.
12. Rs 10000 crore fund for startups.
Status: Partially Achieved- The fund has been established, scheme has been formulated and RBI’s comments have been received. The matter with regard to the source of investment is under consideration
13. 8500 Km National Highway to be constructed during current Financial Year (Upto March 2015)
Status: Partially Achieved- Till December, 2014, 2475 km. highway has been constructed. It doesnt seem likely that the Government will achieve its target
14. Impasse in Coal Sector to be resolved
Status: Partially Achieved- The Coal Mines (Special provisions) Ordinance, 2014 has been promulgated. E-auction of the coal blocks has been initiated.
15. Financial Inclusion Mission for all households in the country
Status: Achieved – “Pradhan Mantri Jan-DhanYojana was launched on 28.08.2014. As per Survey result, out of 2105.93 lakh households, 2105.52 lakh households have been covered.
16. Framework for licensing small banks and other differentiated banks
Status: Achieved – The final guidelines on licensing of Small Finance Banks in the private sector and Payments Banks have been placed by RBI on its website on 27th November, 2014. Applications for setting up such banks were invited by 16th January, 2015.
17. Detailed Project Reports on River Linking
Status: Partially Achieved- 16 Feasibility Reports have been completed. Rs 60 crore has been allocated in the current financial year 2014-15 for the work of preparation of the DPR for inter linking of river under IWRSD Component of the Plan scheme namely River basin Management.
18. Power & Water Reforms for Delhi
Status: Achieved –
Power reforms: Scheme approved. Rs 200 crore released to Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
Water reforms: The SFC in its meeting held on 16.12.2014, approved for Rs 450 crore and Rs 50 crore for Renuka dam. Payment of Rs 270 crore was released to Govt. of NCT Delhi on 22.12.2014.
19. Swacch Bharat Abhiyan
Status: Partially Achieved- The Scheme has been launched on 2.10.2014. Guidelines have been issued on 28.12.2014.
20. Review of definition of MSME
Status: Partially Achieved- The draft Amendment Bill to change the definition of MSME has been circulated to all the concerned Ministries/ Departments, State Governments and other stakeholders for comments.
B. MAJOR SCHEMES: 7 Achieved, 2 Partially Achieved/Work in Progress, 1 Not Achieved
1. National multi-scale programme ‘Skill India’
Status: Not Achieved- Although a new Ministry i.e. Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship has been created, the programme is still being worked out.
2. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gram Jyoti Yojana to augment power supply in rural areas
Status: Partially Achieved- The Scheme has been approved by Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) on 20.11.2014.
3. Varishtha Pension Bima Yojana
Status: Achieved – Varishtha Pension Bima Yojana was launched on 14.8.2014.
4. Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao Yojana
Status: Achieved – The Scheme was launched on 22.1.2015.
5. Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana
Status: Achieved – Joint detailed Plan/Guidelines were formulated and issued to all State Governments on 31.7.2014
6. Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya New Teachers Training Programme
Status: Achieved – Launched on 25.12.2014
7. School Assessment Programme
Status: Achieved – Has been approved and is being rolled out.
8. “One Rank One Pension”
Status: Partially Achieved- A working Group suggested some possible options for implementation of the scheme. The modalities are under consideration.
9. Young Leaders Programme to promote leadership skills
Status: Achieved – A new Central Sector Scheme namely, ‘National Youth Leaders Programme (NYLP)’ was launched in December 2014.
10. Interest Subvention Scheme for Short Term Crop Loans
Status: Achieved – Cabinet has approved the proposal on 10.12.2014. Guidelines have been issued on 18.12.2014.
(Most of the above information is available here in the Government of India’s Action taken Report)
