THE HINDU EDITORIAL- MARCH, 23, 2022
|
Dhami’s climb Despite losing his seat, the new CM
has demonstrated a Statewide appeal The Bharatiya Janata Party’s decision
to appoint Pushkar Singh Dhami as Chief Minister of Uttarakhand appears to be
a considered one. He had lost the Assembly election from Khatime, a
constituency that he represented twice, bringing into question his
suitability to continue in the post that he came to occupy in July 2021. The
reappointment for a second term is appreciation by the BJP leadership of his
significant contribution in steadying the ship for the party within the few
months he was at the helm. The BJP has had a rough patch in the hill State,
and Mr. Dhami was the third Chief Minister in the last year of the previous
Assembly’s five-year term. Though he lost his seat, the BJP cruised to a
comfortable majority, the first time a ruling party retained power since the
State was formed 21 years ago. By selecting Mr. Dhami, the BJP has effected a
definitive generational transition in Uttarakhand. Several former Chief
Ministers are around in Uttarakhand, and some of them were aspirants this
time too. The trust that the BJP has shown in Mr. Dhami, could settle the
leadership tussles in the party for sometime to come. Groomed in the ABVP,
and rising through the ranks, the 46-year-old Chief Minister has earned the
trust of Prime Minster Narendra Modi and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. His
initial appointment was more an act of firefighting by the BJP, but this
time, he has earned it through performance and the acceptability that he
would win across the cross section of the State’s populace despite losing
from his own constituency.
As the sole commander of a State which is in a precarious financial
situation, Mr. Dhami’s job is not going to be an easy one. Meeting the
development aspirations of the people in an ecologically fragile region poses
unique challenges. The State can unlock more of its tourism potential, but
accompanying environmental costs will have to be factored in. A Rajput, Mr.
Dhami gained the goodwill of other communities too in his previous term. His
compromise on a government move to regulate the affairs of the Char Dham –
the four preeminent Hindu pilgrimage sites in the Himalayas in the State –
assuaged the Brahmins who were miffed with the BJP. With the endorsement of
the party’s central leadership and a stable social coalition, he is well
poised for the moment, but that is no guarantee for the future. The 2024 Lok
Sabha election will be a political test for him. He is surrounded by veterans
who might take time to adjust to the new hierarchy, and new aspirants. He
also happens to be the first Chief Minister of the State who was not an
active politician during the campaign for its formation. The new Chief
Minister of Uttarakhand has a great opportunity and faces great challenges. Status quo and
beyond Chief Minister Sawant needs to build
on Goa’s strong fundamentals By retaining incumbent Promod Sawant
as the Chief Minister of the State, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) decided
to maintain the status quo as far as leadership was concerned. Under Mr.
Sawant’s helmsman ship, the party won 20 of the 40 seats in the Assembly,
which was an improvement on its tally in 2017 – 13 seats. But in terms of
vote share, the party barely added 0.8 percentage points. The Centre for the
Study of Developing Societies (CSDS)-Lokniti survey for the State pointed out
that only 31% of the respondents were keen on the ruling party returning to
power and it was the fragmented Opposition with a bevy of political outfits
in the fray that helped the BJP to retain power. Former Congress leader
Vishwajit Rane’s name was also doing the rounds as a possible replacement,
but the BJP went with the incumbent. Mr. Sawant’s retention clearly suggests
that the BJP was not keen on rocking the boat in a fragile political
ecosystem, where party identification for legislators has been prone to frequent
changes. The BJP government has also received support from two MLAs of the
Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party and three Independents, which should ensure
that stability, will not be a concern for the regime.
The mandate also suggests that Mr. Sawant’s government needs to
perform much better. Unemployment and development issues mattered the most to
the Goan voters, who were also displeased with the management of the pandemic
by the government. Goa is a State with high human development indices
relative to the rest of the country – it has the highest per capita income,
among the lowest poverty rates, among the highest literacy rates and scores
high on access to good quality education with a low drop-out rate from
schools. But it also registers among the highest unemployment rates in States
– the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE)’s latest unemployment
survey data show an unemployment rate of 12% in the State; only six States
had a higher figure. The novel corona-virus pandemic had a significant impact
on an economy in which tourism, a prominent sector, took a major hit. The
post-COVID-19 recoveries in the travel and tourism industry should help the
State going forward, but the government can do much better in leveraging the
State’s high literacy and developing its food processing, IT services and
bio-technology sectors, to diversify an economy that used to be dependent on
environmentally costly mining activities. Mr. Sawant’s administration must
focus on utilizing Goa’s good socio-economic indicators and take holistic
development forward. A vibrant polity with a healthy and committed Opposition
that is not fixated on gaining access to power – Goans rated the quality of
individual candidates as a key variable for their choice – can help in this
process too. |
A blow to
equitable access to essential medicines The ‘compromise outcome’ at the WTO
could see India and South Africa losing their lead theme in the COVID-19
fight BISWAJIT DHAR
& K. M. GOPAKUMAR At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic
in October 2020 and in the midst of concerns over the availability of
affordable vaccines, medicines and other medical products, India and South
Africa had tabled a proposal in the World Trade Organization (WTO) seeking a
temporary waiver on these products from certain obligations under the
Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (https://bit.ly/3D2C7A3). A timeline Their contention was that the
application and enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRs) were “hindering
or potentially hindering timely provisioning of affordable medical products
to the patients”. They, therefore, argued that “rapid scaling up of
manufacturing globally” was “an obvious crucial solution to address the
timely availability and affordability of medical products to all countries in
need”, and for doing so, IPRs must be waived for at least three years. By
submitting their proposal, India and South Africa had, thus, taken a firm
position that when lives are a stake, these products should be treated as
global public goods.
Nearly 18 months later, 164 members of the WTO could not find common
ground on the “waiver proposal” even as 63 developing countries have become
co-sponsors of the proposal and another 44 countries lent support from the
floor. Initially, all advanced countries opposed the proposal, but after the
Biden Administration took office, the United States (U.S.) backed the waiver,
but only for vaccines. The stance of the advanced countries is hardly
surprising as they have always put the interests of pharmaceutical companies
ahead of the lives of the ordinary citizens in many countries who are yet to
be fully vaccinated. As of today, only 14% of people in low-income countries
have received at least one vaccine dose. What is worse, the recent surge of
infection in China is a strong warning to the global community that the
threat from COVID-19 still remains. The EU ‘solution’ In this complex situation, when one of
the consistent opponents of the “waiver proposal”, namely, the European Union
(EU), announces that the differences over the proposal had been resolved,
there is considerable interest in the details. This interest becomes even
greater when it is revealed that India and South Africa, the movers of the “waiver
proposal”, are among the four countries that found a “compromise outcome”.
The U.S. is the fourth WTO member of the “Quad” proposing the way forward.
The EU, which has unveiled the “solution”, states that this is a “compromise
outcome” that will now be “put … forward for [WTO] members’ consideration”.
Interestingly, the “compromise outcome” adopts the approach that the EU has
been proposing all along – namely, granting compulsory licences to enhance
vaccine production.
While opposing the concept of “waiver of application and enforcement
of IPRs, the EU had proposed in a submission in June 2021 that “compulsory
licences are a perfectly legitimate tool that governments may wish to use in
the context of a pandemic” (https://bit.ly/3tscWUo).
It is, therefore, surprising to find that three of the four “Quad” members,
who have been supporting the waiver proposal (the U.S. had extended limited
support), have diluted their stand and have accepted the EU’s proposal as the
“compromise outcome”. On licences Generally, patent laws, including that
of India’s, allowed for the grant of compulsory licences if patent holders
charge high prices on the proprietary medicines in exercise of their monopoly
rights. Moreover, such licences can usually be granted if efforts in
obtaining voluntary licences from the patent holders have failed. The “Quad”
proposal states there that in case of a medical urgency, as is the case now,
this condition will be waived. In other words, there is no requirement to
make efforts to obtain voluntary licences with the patent holders before
granting compulsory licences on the patented products. The “Quad” solution
also provides that WTO members would be able to issue compulsory licences even
if they do not currently have the provisions to issue them under their
national patent laws. Compulsory licences can even be granted using executive
orders, emergency decrees, and judicial or administrative orders.
The compulsory licensing system that the “Quad” has proposed contains
considerable details, the implications of which need to be understood. The “Quad”
solution can be used only by an “eligible member”, defined as a “developing
country member” of the WTO that “had exported less than 10 percent of world
exports of COVID-19 vaccine doses in 2021”. The eligibility criteria,
therefore, implies that the least developed countries are excluded. This
means that Bangladesh, which is still a least developed country, but has a
growing pharmaceutical industry, is also excluded.
The eligibility condition seems to have been introduced to limit China’s
expansion in the global vaccine market. According to the WTO, this was 33.7%,
as on January 31, 2022, but the reality is that China is not one of the
countries that would benefit from the “Quad” solution. China has developed
several home-grown vaccines and hence does not need compulsory licences to
expand its production base. At the current juncture, India does not have to
be concerned with the export restriction clause, as its share in global
exports of vaccines was 2.4% as on January 31 (https://bit.ly/316o5Ag). While introducing the abovementioned
export restriction, the “Quad” solution proposes to waive the obligation under
Article 31(f) of the TRIPS Agreement. Article 31(f) provides that the
compulsory licences issued by any WTO member must be used “predominantly for
the supply of the domestic market”. The “Quad” solution states that the
exports restriction in 31(f) was removed as there was a “long standing
request from the waiver proponents that want to be free to export any
proportion of the COVID-19 vaccine”. But while they have proposed removal of
Article 31(f), the “Quad” solution includes a more stringent export
restriction in the form of the eligibility criteria mentioned above.
The “Quad” solution is a severely truncated version of the “waiver
proposal” in terms of product coverage, as only vaccines are included. The
proponents of the “waiver proposal” sought to include not only medicines,
vaccines, and medical equipment but also the methods and the means of
manufacturing the products necessary for the prevention, treatment, or
containment of COVID-19 (https://bit.ly/3tqEvNL).
Further
conditions Further, the “Quad” has introduced
additional conditions to using the compulsory licences, some of which are
well beyond the developing country obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. For
instance, the proposed condition of listing all patents covered under the
compulsory licences is not a requirement under the TRIPS Agreement.
Similarly, there is no obligation to notify the details of licensee, the
quantity and export destination under the TRIPS provisions, but the Quad text
proposes mandatory notification.
However, compulsory licences may not result in the outcome that the
waiver proponents were aiming for. According to the EU, when compulsory
licences are granted, the “patent holder receives adequate remuneration”, but
“transfer of know-how is not ensured” (https://bit.ly/3ip48bs).
This plain admission by the EU about the demerits of compulsory licences,
medicines, and medical devices in the developing world, thus constraining
their availability at affordable prices.
Finally, it must be said that by accepting the “compromise outcome”,
India and South Africa could jeopardize their high moral ground which they
had gained through their attempt to make medicines and medical products
necessary for COVID-19 treatment or containment as global public goods.
Consequently, the global community would lose an important opportunity to
ensure that vaccines and medicines are accessible to all. Needed, an Indian
Legislative Service A common service can help strengthen
the many legislative bodies in India, from the panchayats level to Parliament VINOD BHANU The appointment of Dr. P.P.K.
Ramacharyulu as the Secretary-General of the Upper House by M. Venkaiah
Naidu, Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, on September 1, 2021, was news that drew
much attention. Ramacharyulu was the first-ever Rajya Sabha secretariat staff
who rose to become the Secretary-General of Upper House. A precedent –
appointing the Secretary-General from ‘outside’ or bureaucracy, often retire.
– Very hard to unfollow was made possible by the Chairman. It was both a
well-deserving signal for long-serving staff of the Parliament secretariat
and course correction to restore the legitimacy of their long-time demand.
However, it was a fleeting gesture – Ramacharyulu was replaced, bizarrely by
a former bureaucrat, P.C. Mody, in less than three months. It is said that
the chairman had given in to political pressures.
Since the first Parliament in 1952, 11 Secretaries-General had served
in the Rajy Sabha before Ramacharyulu. Except for some of the lateral entry
staff, who could become Secretaries-General, all the others were parachuted
from the civil services or other services from time to time.
In the first Parliament, the Rajya Saba opted for the first Secretary
(General) S.N. Mukherjee, a civil servant, despite India having a legacy of
the Legislative Assembly Department (Secretariat) attached to the Central
Legislative Assembly since 1929. However, S.N. Mukherjee’s appointment as
Secretary (General) could be justified as he had served in the Constituent
Assembly Secretariat as Joint Secretary and chief draftsman of the Constitution.
S.S. Bahlerao joined the Rajya Sabha Secretariat as Deputy Secretary in 1958
and rose to become the third Secretary (General) in 1976. Before his Rajya
Sabha stint, he had served as Assistant Secretary in the erstwhile Hyderabad
Legislative Assembly and as Secretary in the Maharashtra Legislative
Assembly.
Similarly, Sudarshan Agarwal joined the Rajya Sabha as Deputy Secretary
and became the fourth Secretary-General in 1981. Since 1993, all the
Secretaries-General of the Rajya Sabha were from the civil service till the
appointment of Ramacharyulu as the 12th Secretary-General. The
appointment of P.C. Mody, a retired IRS officer as the 13the
Secretary-General in the Upper House was for the first time. Independent of
the executive Article 98 of the Constitution
provides the scope of separate secretariats for the two Houses of Parliament.
The principle, hence, laid in the Article is that the secretariats should be
independent of the executive government. In the Constituent Assembly, R.K.
Sidhwa, an eminent member, emphasized the need for an independent
secretariat. He cited an illustration: “When the speaker’s secretariat wanted
pencils for the members, the executive refused to give them.” It figuratively
marked the significance of an independent secretariat. A separate secretariat
marks a feature of a functioning parliamentary democracy.
The Secretary-General, with the rank equivalent to the Cabinet
Secretary, is the third most key functionary of the Rajya Sabha after the
Chairman and the Deputy Chairman. The Secretary-General also enjoys certain
privileges such as freedom from arrest, immunity from criminal proceedings,
and any obstruction and breach of their rights would amount to contempt of
the House. The Secretaries-General of both the Houses are mandated with many
parliamentary and administrative responsibilities. One of the prerequisites
that demand the post of the Secretary-General is unfailing knowledge and vast
experience of parliamentary procedures, practices and precedents. Most of the
civil servants lack precisely this aspect of expertise. In the Lok Sabha Unlike the Rajya Sabha, the Lok Sabha
had nine of its staff (including the lateral-entry officers) raised to become
Secretaries-General to date. The first Secretary (General) of the Lok Sabha,
M.N. Kaul (1952-64), was Secretary to Constituent Assembly Secretariat
(1947-50) and the Provisional Parliament (1950-52). S.L. Shakdhar (1964-77),
the second Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha, who was the Secretary of the
Department of Parliamentary Affairs in 1949, was later appointed as the OSD
to M.N. Kaul, and succeeded Kaul as the Secretary (General) of the Lok Sabha
subsequently. The nine Secretaries-General (from the Secretariat) were Avtar
Singh Rikhy, Subhash Kashyap, C.K. Jain, R.C. Bhardwaj, G.C. Malhotra, P.D.T.
Achary, S. Bal Shekar, P. Sreedharan and P.K. Grover. The precedent of
promoting the senior-most secretary to the post of Secretary-General of the
Lok Sabha has met with pause and resume. Also, some of them got the
Secretary-General position after their retirement. Constitution a
breach Serving civil servants or those who
are retired come with long-held baggage and the clout of their past career.
When civil servants are hired to the post of Secretary-General, this not only
dishonors the purpose of ensuring the independence of the Secretariat but
also leads to a conflict of interests. It breaches the principle of
separation of power. The officials mandated with exercising one are of power
may not expect to exercise the others.
In a parliamentary polity, one of the roles of Parliament is to watch
over the executive’s administrative behavior. In other words, Parliament has
all the reasons for its surveillance of administration. Parliament must have
the technical and human resource competency that is on a par with the
executive to be an effective body for providing meaningful scrutiny and to
make the executive accountable. A strong Parliament means a more answerable
executive. However, the bureaucracy persistently does not allow Parliament to
be a competent and robust legislative institution. An all-India
service is a must There are thousands of legislative
bodies in India, ranging from the panchayats, block panchayats, zila
parishad, and municipal corporations to State legislatures and Union
Parliament at the national level. Despite these mammoth law-making bodies,
they lack their own common public recruiting and training agency at the
national at the national level. Parliament and State legislative secretariats
recruit their pool of bureaucrats separately. Ensuring competent and robust
legislative institutions demands have qualified and well-trained staff in
place. The growth of modern government and expansion of governmental
activities require a matching development and laborious legislative exercise.
Creating a common all-India service cadre – an Indian Legislative Service –
is a must. A common service can build a combined and experienced legislative
staff cadre, enabling them to serve from across local bodies to Union
Parliament. The Rajya Sabha can, under Article 312, pass a resolution to this
effect, in national interest, to create an all-India service common to both
the Union and the States, and enables Parliament to create such a service by
law.
In the United Kingdom, the Clerk of the House of Commons has always
been appointed from the legislative staff pool created to serve Parliament.
It is high time that India adapts and adopts such democratic institutional
practices. |
