THE HINDU EDITORIAL - APRIL 4, 2022

 

THE HINDU EDITORIAL – APRIL 4, 2022

 

For a full repeal The relaxation of AFSPA is welcome, but the demand for full repeal should be considered In what is clearly to nod to the vociferous demand for the repeal of the unpopular Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) from several States in the northeast, especially after 13 civilians were killed in Mon district in Nagaland in December last year, the Union Home Ministry has decided to considerably reduce the number of “disturbed areas” under the Act in three States. The order, from April 1, is applicable for six months. In Nagaland, while AFSPA was removed from the jurisdiction of 15 police stations in seven districts, it remains in place in 57 police station in 13 districts. The relaxation has been most substantial in Assam, where it has been removed entirely from 23 districts and partially from one, thus limiting its operation fully to only nine districts. In Manipur, on the other hand, only 15 police station areas in six districts have been excluded from the disturbed area notification, and the Act is still in force in 82 police stations in 16 districts, including several hill districts whether or not they adjoin the international boundary. As things stand, the Government’s decision to relax the application of the Act in specific areas seems to stem from the reduction in violence and also administrative reasons rather than as a response to the burning question on whether the Act is essential to security operations in these States, which have experienced insurgencies of various degrees in the past.    While this piecemeal gesture would be welcomed by the residents in these areas in particular, the popular demand for the repeal of the Act in full from the three States remains unfulfilled. Despite the vociferous protests from security forces for the retention of the Act, human rights organizations, sections of civil society and committees including the five-member committee led by retired Supreme Court judge B.P. jeevan Reddy in 2005, have steadfastly called for its repeal. The committee in particular had suggested that the Act had created an impression that the people of the northeast States were being targeted for hostile treatment and that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act could instead be suitably amended to tackle terrorism. The Supreme Court-appointed Justice N. Santosh Hegde committee, in 2013, which investigated “encounter” killings in Manipur, suggested that the Act must be properly reviewed every six months to see if its implementation is necessary, but extensions of the purview of the Act have proceeded as routine affairs. In 2016, the Supreme Court had also ruled that the armed forces could not be immune from investigation for excesses committed during the discharge of their duties even in “disturbed areas”, in effect circumscribing the conditions in which the immunity is applied. These beg the question again – why should the Act remain in the Statute?     Lift spending The Centre must crank up capital spending if it wants to stoke the economy Official industrial data from February shows output in the eight core sectors grew at the fastest pace in four months at 5.8%, aided liberally by a low base effect – production had contracted 3.3% a year earlier. However, when compared with January 2022, output in all of these sectors actually declined, with the overall index contracting 5.2%. Electricity generation, a good indicator of business activity and which contributes about 20% to the weight of the index declined 3.3% from the preceding month. Steel, another index heavyweight that feeds into various sectors of the economy from housing to cars to white goods and small-scale engineering and parts units, dipped 5.2% from January 2022. Making up the largest component of the index, at about 28%, is the refinery products category. For a sector that facilitates other industries by powering mobility, output slid 8% sequentially. The Omicron wave, early in the calendar year, coupled with rising prices likely dampened demand, signaling uneven economic recovery from the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. The road to a full recovery looks long and bumpy, as the latest production levels are still below, or barely above, those seen pre-pandemic. Inflation, which has already breached the Reserve Bank of India’s upper tolerance limit of 6% two months running, is a threat to consumer demand. If demand remains muted, or worse, slips further, the domino effect upstream will only impact the core sectors further. The RBI’s Monetary Policy Committee has its work cut out in a meeting later this week, when the paned will decide on benchmark interest rates that could potentially influence inflation.    At the same time, government spending, which could set the pace for overall growth in a stuttering economy, has not roared forward. Capital expenditure grew a mere 0.8% in February from a year earlier. Even though capex had risen about 20% in the April-February 11-month period, the Centre still had about 1.2 lakh crore rupees left to be spent in March, and it appears unlikely that the Government would have met its revised capex target of 6 lakh crore rupees for FY22. Though tax revenues have been robust, the Government likely held back on capital expenditure to help offset the lack of divestment proceeds it had budgeted for. Given geopolitical tensions, the stock market has been too volatile for the Government to go ahead with the initial public offer for LIC. The sale of stake in BPCL has also not proceeded apace. Despite these roadblocks, the Government may have little choice but to crank up capital spending early in the new fiscal if it wants to stoks the economy. The multiplier effect would not only benefit industries such as cement and steel, but may also help crowd in private investment, spurring job creation, which has been the economy’s Achilles heel for a while now.

Yes, a Ukraine peace plan is possible Even if it does not fully meet the requirements of either Moscow or Kyiv, it would at least prevent a wider conflagration M.K. NARAYANAN Several weeks into the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which has become a virtual proxy war with the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) providing military assistance to Ukraine to persist in its fight against Russia, the fog of war has not lifted. Some direct talks between Russian and Ukrainian representatives have taken place but these have been of little avail. At this point it seems unlikely that an end to the ongoing humanitarian disaster is in sight. Boost for the U.S. It is increasingly evident that this is a war that nobody wants, least of all the Ukrainians or even the Russians; yet no one seems to be making the right moves to end the conflict. For NATO and its allies in Europe, this is not a conflict they wished to wage at this time. For the U.S., however, the unity displayed by NATO currently has been a major boost, reinforcing its belief that European security is inextricably linked to a strong and united NATO. Whether with the help of NATO, the U.S. has succeeded in isolating Russia in Europe is still an open question, but the U.S. can feel satisfied with the outcome as of now.     In the meantime, the carnage in Ukraine continues. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, for his part, might claim that he is ready to discuss neutrality, even as Russia, while continuing with its military operations, has been sending out feelers that it could consider limiting the conflict. However, in effect the two antagonists appear to be talking past rather than to one another.    What is more unfortunate is that the world is standing by, allowing the conflict to continue – with the West encouraging rather than restraining Mr. Zelensky from ‘baiting’ Russian President Vladimir Putin. Neither the United Nations, nor any of the major countries, have seriously explored any peace moves, nor followed up on what Mr. Zelensky means when he says that he is ready to discuss neutrality. To an outsider, it looks as if Ukraine has become a pawn in the power game between the West and Russia. Seize the chance                                                                                                  If indeed the world is approaching a tipping point, then what is needed is less, not more, of the kind of grandstanding employed by Mr. Zelensky (occasionally laced with a demand for direct talks with Mr. Putin), or the charade of negotiations that are currently taking place between Ukraine and Russian negotiators. It may be too much to expect the Russian side to demonstrate proper contriteness for the unfortunate killing of thousands of civilians, but pressure should be brought on Russia to try and enter into more realistic negotiations with Ukraine. The West also needs to play a more active role, and try to devise a ‘Peace Plan’ taking advantage of the occasional statements made by both sides about their willingness to halt the conflict.    The crying need today is for a peace plan which even if it does not fully satisfy the requirements of either Russia or Ukraine – and obliquely that of the U.S. and the West – will at least ensure a cessation of hostilities and prevent the conflict from becoming further enlarged, resulting in a wider conflagration involving more countries and more powers. It should not prove too difficult, or beyond the realm of possibility, to arrive at a peace arrangement or devise a plan, that would accommodate Ukraine’s professed need for neutrality (with or without assured guarantees) and Russia’s concern about the further Eastward push of NATO (that implicitly threatens Russia’s security).     Working out an arrangement down to the smallest detail would, however, entail a great deal of ‘shuttle diplomacy’ by interlocutors acceptable to both Russia and Ukraine, who also have the necessary ‘gravitas’ to undertake such a task. Speed is of the essence, as with each passing day, the risk of a wider conflagration increases. The world is not bereft of individuals who can play a critical role as interlocutors at this time, but it demands both honestly of purpose and the will to overcome the odds. The use of sanctions To begin with, the West should reconsider its current obsession with imposing additional sanctions on Russia, in the expectation that this would lead to the collapse of Russia and an end to the ‘regality’ of Mr. Putin. It might be argued that there is greater merit in imposing economic sanctions on a country than in launching an all-out war.     Notwithstanding this, and despite the pressure that sanctions have put on the Russian economy (its economy is expected to plunge by anything between 12% to 15% over the next few months), the jury is still out on whether economic pain of this kind would lead any country – at least in the short and the medium term – to alter its mindset. Iran is a classic instance.     In the meantime, several well regarded economists have come out with their views regarding the ‘unintended consequences’ of the overuse of sanctions. Their refrain is that “the over use of economic weapons could reverse the process of globalization that has allowed the modern world to prosper”. Similar concerns exist about the fragmentation of the global payment situation. Certain experts have again warned that the sanctions regime placed on Russia, unless calibrated very carefully, could exacerbate food shortages in low income countries. The short point is that economic sanctions, while seemingly an excellent option, can also have deleterious consequences for much of the world.     It would also be interesting to speculate on some of the spillover effects of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Indisputable, Russia’s inability to coerce Ukraine into submission within a very short time frame has dented Russia’s image as also that of its vaunted military machine. While many explanations for Russia’s slow advance in Ukraine may be forthcoming, what must have surprised, if not shocked, Russia is that the 30-nation NATO should have displayed this degree of cohesion in the face of the Russian onslaught. This would have been a wakeup call for Russia, and a clear boost to the efforts of the West to contain what it perceived as Russian neo-imperialism. What is ahead for Russia If Mr. Putin’s effort to ‘correct history’ was the trigger for the Ukraine crisis – one that did not quite follow the script he had hoped for- there could be similar and equally less palatable fallout for the West as well: more specifically, the U.S. and its hopes to reclaim global leadership. According to many analysts, one fallout of the current conflict in Ukraine is likely to be a further cementing of the already deepening Russia-China strategic relationship, which has been in evidence over the past several months. The degree of unity displayed by the West, and the determination to stand together, is expected to result in taking the existing Russia-China relationship to the next level, approximating to what existed prior to the Great Communist Divide in the early 1960s. Some analysts even argue that a clue to this can be found in some of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s recent utterances, wherein he has talked of the need to revive the spirit of the Korean War of the 1950s.    Several possibilities arise if the Russia-West divide was to crystallize along the current lines. Almost certainly, one will see a reshaping of the world energy map, if current embargoes on Russian oil and gas were to continue.    Oil flows to Europe would thereupon come mainly from West Asia and the U.S.; in turn countries such as China and India may become major importers of crude from Russia. It is uncertain at this time whether this would be a practicable proposition over the longer haul, but new permutations and combinations are certain to take place. India’s stand Next, even as China and Russia relations become further strengthened, the question before India would be how it should position itself. Till now, India had taken a consistent stand of not criticizing or condemning Russia on any account, including its invasion of Ukraine. This was largely based on India’s long-term defence and other relationships with Russia. This could undergo changes. One might also anticipate a further churn in the politics of West Asia – where the Abraham Accords in 2020 seemed to bring a certain degree of normalcy and stability. Iran’s posture and politics will also play an important role in shaping the politics of this region.    One thought that cannot be dismissed as being entirely frivolous is whether repeated accusations leveled by the West against Mr. Putin of attempting to use nuclear weapons to devastate Ukraine, are a prelude to, or a curtain raiser, for experimentation – more importantly, preparing the public to consider removing the current taboo regarding nuclear weapons. Repeated references, without providing any evidence, would seem to suggest that this might possibly be a smokescreen for such experimentation. For instance, it may not be too outlandish for both sides to consider the use of miniaturized nukes with precision (drone delivery mechanisms. If the Russia-Ukraine war were to persist, one could even envisage the possibility of the use of micro nuclear payloads mated to miniaturized precision delivery mechanisms. One hopes that before this, saner voices across the world would prepare the way for a peace package in Ukraine.     A far-reaching verdict that ends a regressive exception In pronouncing the end of the marital rape exception, the Karnataka High Court has delivered a nuanced judgment JAYNA KOTHARI Over the last several months, arguments challenging the constitutionality of the marital rape exception in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) had gripped the Delhi High Court. While the judgment in those petitions is still awaited, in one clean swoop Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court on March 23, 2022, in the case of Hrishikesh sahoo vs State of Karnataka, pronounced the end of the marital rape exception. The background Outcomes in judicial proceedings are almost always shaped by the cases which come before the courts. This judgment was a result of a unique case where a woman had filed a criminal complaint of rape against her husband due to the repeated acts of sexual assault she had to face. The police registered her complaint under Section 376 notwithstanding the marital rape exception, a charge sheet was filed and the Sessions Judge took cognizance and framed charges under Section 376. The husband filed an application to drop the charge of Section 376 but the Sessions Judge rejected it. This led to the husband approaching the High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.     In a nuanced and far-reaching judgment, Justice Nagaprasanna refused to quash the charge of rape against the husband. He held that if a man, being a husband is exempted for his acts of sexual assault, it would destroy women’s right to equality, which is the very soul of the Constitution. He held that the Constitution recognizes and grants equal status to women, but the exception to marital rape in the IPC amounts to discrimination because a wife is treated as subordinate to the husband. The Constitution considers marriage as an association of equals and does not in any sense depict women to be subordinate to men and guarantees women the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 the right to live with dignity, personal liberty, bodily integrity, sexual autonomy, right to reproductive choices, right to privacy, right to freedom of speech and expression. He held that the exemption of the husband on committal of such assault/rape cannot be so absolute that it becomes a license for commission of a crime; in provocative words he stated, “a man is a man; an act is an act; rape is a rape, be it performed by a man the “husband” on the women “wife”, and refused to quash the case. Earlier judgments There have been other judgments which have already been a precursor to doing away with this exception. In Independent Thought vs Union of Indian (2017), the supreme Court of India diluted it and removed the exception to marital rape to a wife not below 15 years and made it 18 years. The Court stated that this would not amount to removing the exception to marital rape for women above 18 years as that was not the case before it, but Justice Madan B. Lokur in similar words held, “… a rape is a rape… A rape that actually occurs cannot legislatively be simply wished away or legislatively denied as non-existent….” The Court held that a girl cannot be treated as a commodity having no say over her body or someone who has no right to deny sexual intercourse to her husband and that the human rights of a girl child are very much alive and kicking whether she is married or not. Roots of the principle The exception to marital rape in common law was due to the dictum by Chief Justice Matthew Hale of Britain in 1736 where he stated: “But the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract.” The concept that by marriage, a woman gave up her body to the husband was accepted as an enduring principle of common law, due to which a husband could not be guilty of raping his wife. This was therefore translated into criminal codes, including the Indian Penal Code which India adopted.     This principle has now been completely abolished. In the United Kingdom, in 1991, the exception to marital rape was done away with in the case of R. vs R. The House of Lords held that where the common law rule no longer even remotely represents what is the true position of a wife in present-day society, the duty of the court is to take steps to alter the rule. The court held that a husband’s immunity as expounded by Chief Justice Matthew Hale no longer exists and took the view that the time had arrived when the law should declare that a rapist remains a rapist subject to the criminal law, irrespective of his relationship with his victim. It held that it was the duty of the court to remove a common law fiction which had become anachronistic and offensive and that there was no justification for the marital exemption in rape.     That was in 1991, more than 30 years ago in the U.K. The Karnataka High Court took a similar view of its duties as a constitutional court in the present case and held that the exception to marital rape in Section 375 is regressive, wherein a woman is treated as a subordinate to the husband and against eh constitutional guarantee of equality. Our courts have now truly pronounced the death knell of the marital rape exception.