July 2021
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

A panoramic look at our three decades of economic reforms

Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level: Not much

Mains level: Paper 3- Look at three decades of economic reforms

Context

This month marks the 30th anniversary of the economic reforms launched by our then finance minister Manmohan Singh in his budget speech of 24 July 1991.

After and before reform comparison

  •  The average annual growth over the past three decades has been 5.8% per annum.
  • It is slightly higher than 5.6% in the decade before 1991.
  • Clearly, our growth acceleration was not sustained, despite a pick-up in the pace of reforms.
  • However, on a long-term comparison, the economy did better than its 4.1% average of the first 40 years of independence.
  • But if we compare our first four decades with the pre-1947 phase, and on that score, we saw a massive growth improvement.

Impact of reforms

  • Their biggest contribution was a change in India’s economic paradigm.
  • Every government after 1991 has embraced the philosophy of liberalization and privatization that those reforms initiated and has tried to outdo the previous regimes on that.
  • Still, 30 years on, the situation for most of our population remains unchanged.
  • The reforms created a class of rich entrepreneurs and a small but vocal middle class in urban areas.
  • But it also contributed to widening inequality, which has worsened after 1991 and is now at its worst level since 1947 on almost all dimensions.
  • The widening of disparities also occurred between urban and rural areas, between laggard states and developed ones.
  • Disparities have increased even further in terms of access to health and education and several other human- development indicators.
  • On most of these, be it education, health, women’s workforce participation and hunger, we remain at the bottom of any global chart of comparison.
  • The logic of reforms meant that expenditure on welfare and investment in human development were not a policy priority.
  • The situation is no different on employment, with data suggesting an absolute decline on this count and a historic rise in unemployment rates.
  • An official consumption survey that was not accepted about two years ago by the Centre had shown, a decline in real consumption and a rise in poverty.
  • Rising informalization and contractualization of the country’s workforce has been a factor in the worsening of most workers’ working conditions.

Why reforms failed to deliver

  • In many ways, they are no different from our pre-reform economic policies, all of which were supply- side responses.
  • The reforms attempted to use the private sector for the task through a liberalized regulatory framework and business-friendly fiscal and monetary policies.
  • But an absence of concern for distributional inequities and aggregate-demand management has continued as the defining feature of our economic policymaking.
  • The consequences of supply-side- biased reforms will show up in a further worsening of income distribution and eventually slow growth down.

Conclusion

Things have taken a turn for the worse with the pandemic. The problem this time is not like the 1991 crisis. What is needed at this point is a fundamental shift in the way economic policy is designed, keeping people and workers at the centre of the exercise.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Labour, Jobs and Employment – Harmonization of labour laws, gender gap, unemployment, etc.

Need for social security to migrant and informal workers

Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level: Recommendation 202

Mains level: Paper 2- Social security for migrant labour

Context

The migrants’ crisis after the two covid waves compelled policy-makers to make certain provisions for them in the schemes announced for the assistance of the poor.

Supreme Court judgement on the issue

  • On June 29, the Supreme Court finally delivered its judgment on the plight of migrant labour.
  • The judgement was notable for two main reasons.
  • First, it recognised that there was the large-scale exclusion of migrant workers and other informal workers from existing schemes due to the lack of their registration and outdated eligibility lists.
  • It noted that no benefits will be denied to migrant workers for want of an Aadhaar card and that food assistance will be provided for migrants who were not covered by the National Food Security Act.
  • Second, it connected informal workers and migrant workers, both of whom experience exclusion, and mandated that the portal for registration of all informal/migrant workers should be fully operational before July 31.

Advantages of providing social protection

  • Investment in social protection is not charity, it is an investment in workers’ productivity and in equitable growth.
  • Providing social protection is, as the UN mooted in 2009 when it spelt out the social protection floor (SPF) initiative after the global financial crisis, the surest way out of a crisis by boosting demand at the bottom of the pyramid.
  • The report of the Advisory Committee of the ILO, in which India was represented by its labour secretary, provides a strong rationale for instituting a universal SPF during economic crises.
  • As a result, all constituents of the ILO adopted Recommendation 202 on social protection floors at the International Labour Conference in 2012.

Inadequate provisions by government

  • The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, was approved by Parliament in December 2008.
  • But it lacks the mandatory elements of the NCEUS’s proposals and included neither a National Minimum Social Security Package, nor the provision for mandatory registration.
  • Estimates show that the central government’s expenditure on all major social protection programmes declined from 1.96 per cent of GDP in 2008-09 to 1.6 per cent in 2013-14 and to only 1.28 per cent in 2019-20.

Way forward

  • The National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) had pointed out that the circular migrant workers were a disadvantaged segment among informal workers.
  • Comprehensive law: The NCEUS had advocated a comprehensive law for the protection of the rights of all informal workers, including migrants, home workers, and domestic workers.
  • Universal registration: NCEUS had also recommended a universal registration mechanism based on self-declaration, with the issuance of a smart social security card, and a National Minimum Social Security Package.
  • Guaranteed social security/social protection: We need the provision of a minimum level of guaranteed social security/social protection for all informal workers and their households within a definite time frame.
  • More public spending: Guaranteed social protection would involve a clear framework and a commitment to greater public resources being spent on social protection as a large class of workers in India do not have an identifiable employer and a contributory social insurance framework will not work for them.
  • Recommendation 202: Government should embrace ILO’s Recommendation 202 and work towards these in a time-bound manner.

Conclusion

To end the silent, painful, and enduring crisis for the workers, as well as the crisis for the economy, the government must urgently recognise the right to social security, embedded both in the Indian Constitution and international covenants.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Can India invoke state sovereignty in Cairn Energy case?

Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level: BIT

Mains level: Paper 2- State sovereignty

Context

Last year, an arbitration tribunal indicted India for breaching its obligations by imposing taxes retrospectively on Cairn. As a result, Cairn Energy has been attempting to seize Indian assets in several jurisdictions to recover $1.7 billion due from India.

How asset seizure order affects India?

  • This episode projects India as an unfriendly country for investors at a time when it wishes to project itself as a prime destination for foreign investment.
  • This episode puts India in the league of countries like Pakistan, Congo, Venezuela, Russia and Argentina, who have been part of attachment proceedings overseas due to their failure to comply with international arbitral awards.
  • Fighting cases will consume an enormous amount of time, money, and resources, in addition to attracting bad press internationally.

Understanding the doctrine of state immunity

  • State immunity is a well-recognised doctrine in international law.
  • It safeguards a state and its property against the jurisdiction of another country’s domestic courts.
  • Despite the universal acceptance of this doctrine, there is no international legal instrument in force administering its implementation.
  • Attempts are underway to create binding international law on the application of the rules of state immunity such as the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (UNSCI).
  • However, this convention is yet to be ratified by 30 countries — the minimum number required to bring it in force, as per Article 30(1) of UNSCI.
  • India has signed the convention, but not ratified it.
  • The doctrine of state immunity has progressed from absolute immunity to restrictive immunity in which immunity is only for the sovereign functions of the state.

Can India invoke state immunity?

  • Most prominent jurisdictions follow the concept of restrictive immunity.
  • State immunity can be invoked to resist the seizure of sovereign assets, but not commercial properties. 
  • In the context of the execution of the investment treaty arbitration awards, properties serving commercial functions are available for seizure.
  • In the case of India, the most popular commercial property that foreign investors would target for attachment are the global assets of India’s public sector undertakings such as Air India.

Way forward

  • If India wishes to continue the case, it needs to carefully study the laws on state immunity in different jurisdictions where attachment proceedings are likely to come up.
  • A better option would be to admit that amending the tax law retrospectively was a mistake and comply with the international ruling.

Conclusion

At the time when India seeks to project itself as an attractive investment destination, such cases could be a setback. India needs to avoid such disputes in the future.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Freedom of Speech – Defamation, Sedition, etc.

Explained: Shreya Singhal case that struck down Section 66A of IT Act

Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level: Shreya Singhal Case

Mains level: Section 66A

Six years after it struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Supreme Court earlier this month termed its continued use by law enforcement agencies of various states as “a shocking state of affairs” and sought a response from the Centre.

What did Section 66A do?

  • Introduced in 2008, the amendment to the IT Act, 2000, gave the government power to arrest and imprison an individual for allegedly “offensive and menacing” online posts, and was passed without discussion in Parliament.
  • Section 66A empowered police to make arrests over what policemen, in terms of their subjective discretion, could construe as “offensive” or “menacing” or for the purposes of causing annoyance, inconvenience, etc.
  • It prescribed the punishment for sending messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet, and a conviction could fetch a maximum of three years in jail.
  • In 2015, the apex court struck down the law in the landmark case Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, calling it “open-ended and unconstitutionally vague”, and thus expanded the contours of free speech to the Internet.

Why was the law criticized?

  • The problem was with the vagueness about what is “offensive”.
  • The word having a very wide connotation was open to distinctive, varied interpretations.
  • It was seen as subjective, and what might have been innocuous for one person, could lead to a complaint from someone else and, consequently, an arrest arbitrarily.

So, how did 66A come under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny?

  • The first petition came up in the court following the arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in November 2012 over a Facebook post.
  • The girls had made comments on the shutdown of Mumbai for the funeral of a political leader.
  • The arrests triggered outrage from all quarters over the manner in which the cyber law was used.
  • The petition was filed by Shreya Singhal, then a 21-year-old law student.

What were the grounds for the challenge?

  • The objective behind the 2008 amendment was to prevent the misuse of information technology, particularly through social media.
  • The petitioners argued that Section 66A came with extremely wide parameters, which allowed whimsical interpretations by law enforcement agencies.
  • Most of the terms used in the section had not been specifically defined under the Act.
  • The law was a potential tool to gag legitimate free speech online and to curtail freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution, going far beyond the ambit of “reasonable restrictions” on that freedom.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

  • In March 2015, a bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman ruled in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India declared Section 66A unconstitutional for “being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2).”
  • Article 19(1)(a) gives people the right to speech and expression whereas 19(2) accords the state the power to impose “reasonable restrictions” on the exercise of this right.
  • The decision was considered a landmark judicial pushback against state encroachment on the freedom of speech and expression.
  • The bench also read down Section 79– now at the centre of the ongoing “intermediary liability” battle between the Centre and micro-blogging platform Twitter– defining key rules for the relationship between governments and commercial internet platforms.
  • Section 79 says that any intermediary shall not be held legally or otherwise liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted on its platform.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Civil Aviation Sector – CA Policy 2016, UDAN, Open Skies, etc.

Draft Drone Rules, 2021

Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level: Not much

Mains level: Draft Drone Rules, 2021

The Ministry of Civil Aviation has released Draft Drone Rules, 2021, for public consultation. The rules will replace the Unmanned Aircraft System Rules, 2021.

Highlights of the Draft Drone Rules 2021

Number of forms: The rules propose to reduce the number of forms required for manufacturing, importing, testing, certifying and operating drones in India from 25 to six.

Abolishing authorization number: The draft seeks to abolish the unique authorisation number, unique prototype identification number, and certificate of conformance that were previously required for approval of drone flights.

Digital Sky Platform: Digital Sky, a platform launched by the government in December 2018, will become a single-window system for all approvals under the newly proposed rules.

Airspace map: An airspace map segregating the entire landmass of India into Green, Yellow and Red zones will be published on the platform within 30 days of notification of the new rules, the government said. The map will also be machine-readable through an Application Programming Interface (API) for easier plotting of drone flight paths.

Airport Perimeter: The draft rules reduced the airport perimeter from 45 km to 12 km. The rules state that no flight permissions would be required to fly up to 400 feet in green zones and up to 200 feet in the area between 8 and 12 km from the airport perimeter.

Drone corridors: The government will also publish a policy framework for Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management (UTM) within 60 days of notifying the rules. This will also include frameworks for developing “drone corridors” for the safe transfer of goods by drones.

Drone Promotion Council: The Rules also propose the setting up of a Drone Promotion Council, with the aim of facilitating a business-friendly regulatory regime for drones in India, the establishment of incubators for developing drone technologies and organizing competitive events to showcase drones and counter-drone solutions.

Others: To implement safety features such as “no permission, no take-off”, real-time tracking and geofencing, drone manufacturers, importers and operators will get six months’ time to comply from the date of notification of the rules.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Modern Indian History-Events and Personalities

When were Tilak and Gandhi tried under the Sedition Law?

Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level: Sedition in colonial times

Mains level: Not Much

Recently, Chief Justice of India N V Ramana observed that the “colonial law” was used by the British to silence Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

Must read:

Sedition Law and its discontents

Use of sedition law through history

  • According to the LOC blog, the first known instance of the application of the law was the trial of newspaper editor Jogendra Chandra Bose in 1891.
  • Other prominent examples of the application of the law include the trials of Tilak and Gandhi.
  • Apart from this, Jawaharlal Nehru, Abul Kalam Azad and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar were also charged with sedition.

When was sedition law used against Gandhi and Tilak?

  • In 1922, Gandhi was arrested on charges of sedition in Bombay for taking part in protests against the colonial government.
  • He was sentenced to six years in prison but was released after two years because of medical reasons.
  • Before Gandhi, Tilak faced three trials in cases related to sedition and was imprisoned twice.
  • He was charged with sedition in 1897 for writing an article in his weekly publication called Kesari and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
  • He has tried again in 1908 and was represented by MA Jinnah. But his application for bail was rejected and he was sentenced to six years.
  • The second time he was tried was also because of his writings, one of which referred to the murder of European women in Muzzafarpur when bombs were thrown by Bengali revolutionaries.
  • Interestingly, the judge who announced Tilak’s sentence in the second trial, Justice DD Davar, had represented him in his first trial in 1897.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Digital India Initiatives

[pib] Kisan Sarathi Platform

In order to facilitate farmers to get ‘right information at right time’ in their desired language, a digital platform namely ‘Kisan Sarathi’ was launched by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.

Kisan Sarathi

  • This digital platform empowers farmers with the technological interventions to reach farmers in remote areas.
  • Through this platform, the farmers can interact and avail personalized advisories on agriculture and allied areas directly from the respective scientists of Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVKs).
  • Using this platform, farmers can get information about crop and crop production, among other things that will help them in improving the quantity of their produce.
  • Farmers will be able to get information about good crop practices, the right amount of products and many other basic things.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

JOIN THE COMMUNITY

Join us across Social Media platforms.

💥Mentorship New Batch Launch
💥Mentorship New Batch Launch