THE HINDU EDITORIAL - MAY 2, 2022

 

THE HINDU EDITORIAL NEWS – MAY 2, 2022

 

Ending AFSPA AFSPA should go entirely because of the impunity it offers armed forces It augurs well for the future that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has given the first authentic indication that the operation of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) may come to an end in the whole of the north-eastern region, if ongoing efforts to normalize the situation bear fruit. Mr. Modi’s remark that a good deal of work is being done in that direction, not only in Assam but also Nagaland and Manipur, may be rooted in his keenness to demonstrate the level of progress achieved in the region under his regime; but it will bring immense relief to the citizens, nevertheless. Areas notified as ‘disturbed areas’ under AFSPA have been progressively reduced in the last few years, mainly due to the improvement in the security situation. About a month ago, the Union Home Ministry reduced such notified areas considerably in Assam, Nagaland and Manipur. There was a substantial reduction in Assam, where AFSPA was removed entirely in 23 districts and partially in one. In Nagaland, after the removal of the law from 15 police stations in seven districts, it remains in areas under 57 police stations, spread across 13 districts. Areas under 82 police stations are still notified under the Act in Manipur; even thought 15 police station areas were excluded from the notification from April 1. Mr. Modi, who spoke at a ‘peace, unity and development rally’ in Diphu in Assam last week, cited “better administration” and the “return of peace” as the reasons for the removal of AFSPA in these areas in a region that has seen insurgencies for decades.    AFSPA was revoked in Tripura in 2015 and in Meghalaya in 2018. It is not unforeseeable that other States will also be excluded from its purview at some point of time. It is convenient to link the exclusion of an area from AFSPA’s purview with reduction in violence by armed groups, improvement in the security situation and an increase in development activity, but what is important is the recognition that the law created an atmosphere of impunity and led to the commission of excesses and atrocities. It was hardly four months ago that 15 civilians were killed in Mon district in Nagaland in a botched military operation. Therefore, alongside the gradual reduction in the areas under the Act, there should be serious efforts to procure justice for victims of past excesses too. On the political side, it is indeed true that much headway has been made in moving towards a political solution to some of the multifarious disputes in the region, in the form of peace accords, ceasefire and creation of sub-regional administrative arrangements. The removal of AFSPA from the entire region will be an inevitable step in the process. But irrespective of the security situation, AFSPA should not have allowed such impunity to the armed forces.   Mercury rising Heatwave deaths must be treated as a disaster that allows compensation by the state India has been in the grip of what seems like an eternity of heatwaves. April temperatures over northwest and central India are the highest in 122 years. During April 1 to 28, the average monthly maximum the same over central India was 37.9֯ Celsius and the same over central India was 37.78֯ C. These averages belie measurements at the district and sub-divisional level where several parts of Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat, and Maharashtra have seen temperatures inch towards the mid-40s and breach normals. There is little respite expected in May, which s anyway the hotest month, thought the India Meteorological Department (IMD) says that while north and west India will continue to sizzle on expected lines, and must likely brace for more heatwaves, the rest of the country is unlikely to see the levels of March and April. A heatwave is declared when the maximum temperature is over 40֯ C and at least 4.5 notches above normal. A severe heatwave is declared if the departure from normal temperature is more than 6.4֯ C, according to the IMD. The proximate causes for the searing heat are an absence of rain-bearing Western Disturbances, or tropical storms that bring rain from the Mediterranean over north India. Cool temperatures in the central Pacific, or a La Nina, that normally aid rain in India, too have failed to bolster rainfall this year.  This is an unusual occurrence.     Despite five Western Disturbances forming in April, none was strong enough to bring significant rain and depress temperatures. The IMD has forecast a ‘normal’ monsoon or 99% of the Long Period Average (LPA) of 87cm and is expected to forecast the monsoon’s arrival over Kerala later in May. On the surface, there is no direct bearing between the intensity of heatwaves an the arrival and performance of the monsoon. In fact, even as northern India based for want of rain, Aril saw monthly rainfall break a four-year record with high rainfall in several parts of southern and north-eastern India. May too is expected to see 9% more rain over India than is usual for the month, though it must be kept in mind that base rainfall is so low in this month that it is unlikely to make a mark. While individual weather events cannot be linked to greenhounse gas levels, a warming globe means increased instances of extreme rain events and extended rain-less spells. What is better known is it helps to have disaster management plans in place that help States better deal with heatwaves and their impact on health. The official toll due to heatwaves in the last 50 years is put at over 17,000 people, according to research from the IMD. The heat island effect means urbanization adds degrees to the already searing conditions; and so, heatwave deaths must be treated as a disaster that merits compensation. Private and public workplaces too must be better equipped to factor heatwave risk.   Third World War talk that could be hyperbole Apart from the grave consequences in an unlikely West versus Russia nuclear stand-off, there are other inhibiting factors M.K. NARAYANAN Amidst signs of a further escalation in conflict levels, vis-à-vis the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war – and accompanying new rhetoric of an even wider conflagration in the offing – concerns about the possibility of a Third World War have gone up by several notches. During the past few days what is further evident is that both sides seem intent on enlarging the scale of the conflicts, rather than trying to end it. Battle cry and response This past week, the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), buoyed by the perceived success of Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s aggression, have further raised the stakes by pledging additional packages of lethal weapons to Ukraine (amounting to several millions of dollars), which the West had, till now, refrained from supplying Ukraine.    Again, in what can only be perceived as a battle cry, the U.S. Defence Secretary, Lloyd Austin, at a meeting of 43 NATO and other countries (held at the Headquarters of the U.S. Air Forces in Europe) declared that what had transpired was a demonstration of the resolve of nations from around the world to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia’s aggression.    Russia’s response has been equally threatening. When asked about the prospect of a Third World War, Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, is on record that the risk, including the possibility of nuclear war, was not inconsiderable and that the situation must not be underestimated. Mr. Lavrov added, “NATO, in essence, is engaged in a war with Russia through its proxy, and is arming that proxy.” He further added that “war means war”.    The implicit threat by Russia of using nuclear weapons cannot be disregarded. Mr. Lavrov is not the only on to talk of nuclear weapons, for former Russian President, and currently Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev similarly warned Sweden and Finland (which are currently not members of NATO) that if they decide to join the U.S.-led military alliance, Russia would not hesitate to deploy nuclear weapons and hypersonic missiles to meet the threat this posed. He ominously added that in such an eventuality, there would be ‘no more talk of a nuclear free Baltic’. Nuclear weapon use is taboo All the signs are, hence, far from reassuring, and concerns about a nuclear holocaust appear real. Yet, it would be premature to arrive at the conclusion that a Third World War, accompanied by the use of nuclear weapons, is around the corner. One fact stands out loud and clear, viz., that since 1945, and despite occasional ‘nuclear sabre rattling’ by the nuclear weapon powers, the use of nuclear weapons has remained taboo.     Since the first two atom bombs were dropped on Japan, the destructive potential of nuclear weapons has only increased multifold. Nuclear weapons are also no longer the monopoly of any one single power. A nuclear attack by any one of the major nuclear powers – Russia, the United States or China – would bring instant retaliation. Again, the nuclear balance today is unfavorable to the West, for Russia and China, between them, have a combined strength of nuclear weapons which is bigger than that of the West. More to the point; if the two sides were to engage in a nuclear conflict, there would be no victors, and it could only result in a nuclear Armageddon.     Apart from grave consequences in the event of a nuclear stand-off, there are other inhibiting factors that make a Third World War an unlikely prospect. One current reality is that there are many degrees of separation as regards the Ukraine-Russia conflict, between the views held by the West and quite a few other countries across the world. Not all countries again are in agreement with the West about the extent of Ukraine, and this segment includes sizeable sections of the emerging world. Even some countries in Europe not affiliated to NATO remain sceptical about the reasons adduced for U.S. support to Ukraine, and hew to the view that the ulterior objective is to restore global belief and faith in U.S. authority and power, and make ‘America great again’. There is even less support to the hackneyed theme that Russia today represents ‘the Empire of Evil’. A latent fear among such uncommitted countries is that all-out support to the West, and allowing it to act as judge, jury and executioner, could create problems for many of them in the future. Europe’s real concern Countries across Europe are also concerned about the costs of the war, more specifically, the cost of rebuilding Ukraine after the conflict could mean for both Europe and the world that are worth mentioning. For instance, Ukraine and Russia are generally referred to as the ‘bread basket’ of Europe. A prolonged conflict would have serious consequences for Europe as far as food security is concerned. Furthermore, Europe is still to recover from adverse impacts of a prolonged novel coronavirus pandemic, and an extended war could damage the economies there even further. As it is, the WTO has downgraded Europe’s trade forecast to 3% from 4.7% for this year. Again, just two companies in Ukraine produce around 50% of the global total neon output – it is a critical gas required for the lasers used in a chip production process known as lithography, ‘where machines carve patterns onto tiny pieces of silicon’. Chip shortages are expected to cause production cuts in the audio, computer and electronic industries. Given all this, a Third World War is hardly the preferred choice of most people, more so in Europe. Signs of a Russian restraint There is little doubt that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s foray into Ukraine was serious blunder – a point made by many western leaders, and quite a few others as well. Nevertheless, Russia has not since displayed the same degree of ‘foolhardiness’ that could provoke a wider conflagration. One instance of this that could be mentioned, and which might have led restraint in the wake of its biggest war-time loss of a battle ship since the Second World War (in which one sailor died and 27 are reportedly mission). That Russia demonstrated restraint even after it became known to the world at large Ukrainian anti-ship missile speaks volumes. To much of Europe and the West, Russia’s response seemed unexpectedly low key. Whether such restraint would continue is a matter for conjecture, but for the present it is indicative of Russia’s unwillingness to enlarge both the area and the intensity of the conflict.    As of now, Russia is concentrating – or at least seems more interested – in dismembering Ukraine, now that Ukraine’s membership of NATO has been put on the backburner. Moscow is currently envying large segments of Ukraine's East and South, and seems to have given up plans for the present to ‘conquer’ the whole of Ukraine and make it a part of Russia. If Russia persists with its current thinking, then it would denote that Russia is not interested in getting embroiled in a Third World War. For their part, most countries of Europe – unlike NATO and possibly the U.S. – believe that they can continue to live with the new order of things.    The problem with this latter objective is that it conflicts with the desire of both the U.S. and NATO to exploit the current war situation in Europe to weaken Russia militarily and politically, and incidentally decapitate Mr. Putin politically by undermining his authority and position. This explains the intensity with which the U.S. has mustered its – and NATO’s – capabilities to resist Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and inflict permanent economic and political damage on Russia, and diminish it militarily. That would meet at least two principal objectives that dominate U.S. thinking at present – revitalising the U.S.-NATO partnership to make it the bulwark of European security and restoring U.S. image in Europe as also across the world. It is ‘sober and being softer’ The current thinking in Europe appears more in line with a softer approach. The re-election of France President Emmanuel Macron was a matter of relief and satisfaction for the U.S. and Europe, but the display of strength by the Far Right is inducing a great deal of rethinking in ruling circles in Europe and underscoring the importance of taking a sober approach to policy issues, avoiding all or any kind of intemperate move. Yet, there are many unknowns that will still need to be dealt with. The West, and specially, the U.S., remains intent on enlarging NATO, and notwithstanding the current Ukraine war, is also probably complicit in the recent announcement by Sweden and Finland of their willingness to join NATO. Being well aware of Mr. Putin’s mind set, it is almost as if the West is daring Russia to react.    The West and Russia both need to be careful and take due care to negotiate the many minefields that abound. The West should be thankful that Mr. Putin has not yet emerged as a Joseph Stalin, but at the same time they should realise that there are no Churchills, De Gaulles and FDRs [Franklin D. Roosevelt] on their side.   Reading from the old script, conceding election 2024 The Congress’s inertia stems from a refusal to recognise that a lot of the old grammar of politics has been overturned HARBANS MUKHIA                                                                If gratitude was a virtue valued by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), it would have much to thank the Gandhi family for even in contrary scenarios.   Let us go to the year 1984: the BJP’s two out of 543 seats in the Lok Sabha versus the Congress’s Rajiv Gandhi and its 414 seats, which remains unbeaten. It was hard for any political party to rise from the ashes of these dimensions. Revival of the opponent However, the BJP did so, with great help from the woolly ‘secularism of Rajiv Gandhi. In one fell swoop of two ‘secular’ steps, he paved the way for the BJP’s revival: by perpetrating a monstrous amendment of the Constitution to overturn the most sensible judgment of the Supreme Court granting maintenance to a hapless Shah Bano, hoping to win the voluble conservative Muslim clergy to his side instead of abiding by the rising liberal voices within the community, and two, by having the locks on the Babri Masjid opened and permitting shilanyas of the Ram temple, thus giving space to the assertion of loud Hindu voices, hoping to win them over too with this concession.    Both steps helped the BJP to emerge from the shadows: the first by providing social acceptance to its charge of minority appeasement against the Congress, and the second by demonstrating that even a government with an unprecedented electoral mandate can be brought to its knees by loud noise. From then on, significantly, even as the Congress has been in power, it never had a majority of its own. More importantly, the BJP’s divisive agenda has found steady support to enable it to come centre stage. For a drastic transformation          And then there is the history of events that occurred from 2014 onwards. The BJP’s divisive agenda, barely hidden under the veil of ‘vikas’, has showed the Congress the writing on the wall: things will never be the same again. And for its survival, a drastic transformation is required – a transformation starting at the base and going to the top, and an imagination way beyond what it was familiar with in its long history. An imagination that counters the BJP’s platform of ‘vikas’ at the top and widespread but localised communal violence at the ground level. A genuine restructuring of the inner working of the Congress is needed to give voice to its supporters at the base and right up to the top, and a narative that goes beyond issuing statements of concern at price rise and for some of its leaders to be paying visits to temples on the eve of every election and a side visit to a dargah on the way.    The one faint sign of an alternate Congress agenda came up a month or two before the 2109 general election, when it coined its ‘Nyuntam Aay Yojana’, or Nyay Yojana, of providing a regular income of 72,000 rupees a year to the bottom 20% of India’s families in terms of the wealth, but it vanished before it could even be heard by the potential beneficiaries, and has never been heard of again. An inertness         The challenge the Congress was expected to pose to the BJP has dissipated owing to its sheer inertia at both the structural and the ideological planes. The inertial emanates from the refusal to recognise that a ot of the old grammar of politics has been overturned. Politics is no longer a leisurely activity undertaken a month or two prior to an election and preparing an appropriate manifesto; it is an agglomerate of constant activity, not least keeping your cadres forever active on several fronts and, above all, the leaders being seen leading from the front all the time and not on occasional visits after getting back home from a secret trip abroad.    Prime Minister Narendra Modi is not the only leader who has changed the grammar; the Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banarjee, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam’s leader M.K. Stalin, the Aam Aadmi Party’s leader Arvind Kejriwal and several others have done it too, and with great success, irrespective of the merits of each.    It is clear that the Gandhis refuse either to look at the writing on the wall(and, therefore, to let any significant change take place either in the mode of the party’s functioning) or to let any alternate agenda come to the fore so long as they remain ensconced at the top, never mind if the bottom keeps slipping away. The suggestions that were reportedly made by political strategic Prashant   Kishor to party recently contain little that the group of 23 senior Congress leaders has not been making over the past two years and more and getting a tongue lashing by the drum beaters around the top. The only significant new suggestion made by Mr. Kishor appears to be strategic one – for the Congress to contest 350 odd seats on its own and for the rest by seeking alliances with regional parties.    The leadership has responded with its time-honoured tactic of burying all implicit criticisms – by appointing a committee to look at them. They have lain buried for over two years anyways. Indeed, they have implicitly lain buried ever since 2014 when the party should have woken up to the new realities and equipped itself to deal with them. Its’ introspective’ sessions after every defeat should easily qualify as a term of political humor. The persistent efforts of the 23 senior party leaders to awaken the top three in the family have been ignored. Mr. Kishor’s suggestions are a case of an alarm bell ringing out, and steps have been announced to ignore these as well. Almost status quo While a step ordained by the party’s own constitution to democratise its inner functioning through fair and transparent elections; to put its mind to creating an agenda that stands apart from the BJP’s (now as well as for the elections), and to start a sort of full-time internal movement is clearly the need of the hour, the leadership has made it clear that that would be its last option. It has thus conceded the 2024 general election to the BJP. It is increasingly getting hard to view the Congress and the BJP as adversaries; they look more to be complementarity is entirely one-sided. Is there any hope that things might change? Any hope that the Gandhi family will gracefully retire and let the party reinvent itself is far too utopian. Any hope that they will undertake the requisite steps themselves is not any more likely. And the rest of the Opposition parties getting together with Congress amounts to “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” under the current scenario. Yet, the fact remains that the BJP’s electoral support does not go beyond 40%; 60% of the voters still remain on the other side.    One can see why Mr. Modi and the BJP should be grateful to the Gandhis.

 

Read More

THE HINDU EDITORIAL - APRIL 5, 2022

 

THE HINDU EDITORIAL – APRIL 5, 2022

 

Game for the throne Imran Khan’s moves to cling to power betray his contempt for parliamentary procedures It was certain that Imran Khan, Pakistan’s Prime Minister, would be ousted in the no-trust vote. The Opposition had put up a united face. His allies had jumped ship, reducing the ruling coalition to a minority. His party lawmakers had revolted against him. The cricketer turned-PM’s defeat was a matter of formality in a country where no Prime Minister has completed their term. On Sunday, the Deputy Speaker dismissed the no-trust motion, calling it against the Constitution, which was followed by Mr. Khan’s formal request to the President to dissolve the National Assembly. Pakistan will have to hold elections in three months, provided there is no judicial intervention. There were three bad options before Mr. Khan: resignation, no-trust vote or early elections. By choosing elections, he avoided a humiliating defeat and also sought to torpedo the Opposition’s bid to form a government for the remainder of the current Parliament’s term. Before the National Assembly convened, Mr. Khan had set the campaign pitch by accusing the Opposition of conspiring with a foreign power (an indirect reference to the U.S.) to unseat him. The current crisis would also allow him to play the victim of some foreign conspiracy and seek a fresh mandate. But the question is what price does Pakistan pay for his political manoeuvring? The conspiracy theories, the dismissal of the no-trust motion and the call for early elections all suggest Mr. Khan’s contempt for parliamentary procedures and basic democratic decency.    For the labyrinth he is in today, Mr. Khan has to blame nobody but himself. Having been a political underdog for years, he broke into Pakistan’s two-party political order in 2018 with the direct support of the military. His cocktail of religious conservatism, nationalism and anti-corruption crusade promised to build a ‘Naya Pakistan’. But while in power, he made three critical mistakes: mismanagement of the economy, mismanagement of his ties with the military and full-spectrum hostility with the Opposition. His vindictive approach towards the Opposition brought together all the major Opposition parties, which tried to cash in on the growing public resentment amid economic woes. Cracks in the government’s relationship with the military began appearing last year when Mr. Khan reportedly sparred with the establishment over the appointment of the new ISI chief. His visit to Moscow in February, immediately after Russia’s Ukraine invasion and the “neutral” policy his government adopted regarding the conflict seem to have quickened his fall. Last week, the Army chief, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, spoke against the Russian invasion and re-emphasized the importance of Pakistan’s ties with the U.S. in a public rebuke of Mr. Khan’s pragmatism. Now, out of favour with the military, a lost majority in Parliament and faced with anger amid a worsening economic crisis, the ‘Captain’ does not have any good options before him. With his back against the wall, what he is doing for political survival is only weakening Pakistan’s non-military institutions and subverting its democratic proceedings.   A pause to reflect The Government, Bharat Biotech should strive for better communication on vaccine safety The World Health Organization’s (WHO) decision to recommend a pause in the supply of Covaxin for export is worrying. This follows an inspection of the company’s production facilities between March 14 and 22 that found “deficiencies” in the process to ensure that the vaccine produced is consistently suitable for use. Bharat Biotech, the makers of Covaxin, has said it is committed to addressing these ‘Good Manufacturing Process deficiencies’ and developing a “corrective and preventive” action plan that it will submit to the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI). WHOO has told countries that for now they should “consider” alternative vaccines but it has also said that the data available with it suggest that Covaxin is safe and effective. The details of these lacunae are not public but Bharat Biotech has said that sophisticated equipment needed to “enhance the process stringency” were unavailable during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is not the first time that Bharat Biotech has tangled with WHO. The global body sought information at least nine times from the Hyderabad company before approving it to be a global supplier of Covaxin. In March 2021, the Brazilian health regulator, Anvisa, pointed to several problems with Bharat Biotech’s manufacturing plant ahead of an agreement by the company to sell 20 million doses of the vaccine to Brazil. This deal was ultimately terminated, but there has never been clear communication either by Bharat Biotech or the DCGI on the concerns raised by the Brazilian health body.    While India is no stranger to making and supplying billions of vaccine doses, it has historically done so with the benefit of time. The pandemic saw pulling out all the stops and the balance between safety and speed tilting towards the latter by both drug regulators, under pressure from their governments, and vaccine manufacturers, for whom gargantuan demand promised a financial windfall. Other companies, internationally too, have made mistakes in supply. AstraZeneca mistakenly supplied some volunteers who were being tested with the Oxford vaccine with half the required dose that led to surprising results. This was not disclosed until much after the trial results were made public and experts openly questioned the efficacy results. The defining characteristic of a vaccine is its safety profile and its acceptability is premised on its makers and the regulators being transparent about it at all times. Both the Government and Bharat Biotech should strive for better public communication on these fronts.

The road to Ukraine peace runs through Delhi Mediation is certainly feasible and India is well positioned to act as a ‘Vishwa-Guru’ between Russia and the West UTKARSH LEO & FAIZAN MUSTAFA Nearly 40 days ago, Russia launched a full-scale military invasion of Ukraine in violation of international law and its security assurances under the Budapest Memorandum, 1994. And, there are no winners in sight. Despite peace talks held on March 29, in Istanbul (Turkey), direct negotiations between the conflicting parties have failed to make much progress: a ceasefire is yet to be achieved, and the Russian attacks on the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine continue. As a result, there have been 3,455 civilian casualties recorded in Ukraine (1,417 killed and 2,038 injured) while more than four million people have fled seeking protection, safety and assistance.    Similarly, in addition to causalities on the Russian side, financial and economic sanctions imposed by the European Union and the G7 have impacted the Russian economy. Despite artificial measures to prop up the rouble, the economy is tanking, annual inflation has jumped to 15.6%, the Russian Central Bank’s forex reserves remain frozen and it cannot access financing and loans from multilateral institutions. At the global level, this war is disrupting supply chins and is causing the fuel and food prices to surge. This begs the question – if this unnecessary war has resulted in a no-win situation, why have negotiations failed to end it? Positions versus interests Past negotiations, by video conferencing or as peace talks (held in Belarus and Turkey) have failed to make much progress because the parties have been negotiating over ‘positions’ rather than ‘interests’. A ‘position’ is a surface statement of what a party wants; for example, Russia’s demand that Ukraine recognizes the separatist republics of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states. Whereas, ‘interests’ are the underlying reasons behind those position; for instance, why is Russia focused on the independence of these separatist areas? Therefore, mediation as a conflicts resolution tool can assist the parties in identifying these hidden ‘interests’ and facilitate them in working towards crafting a solution that each of the parties would value – a Europe of common security and prosperity where the sovereignty of all nations (Ukraine, Russia and the West) are guaranteed.    Mediation (or assisted negotiation) is a flexible conflict resolution tool facilitated by a neutral third party. Depending on the choice of parties, it can be facilitative or evaluative and can be conducted in joint sessions or caucuses (i.e., private meetings). Additionally, its focus on collaborative bargaining producing a win-win outcome (in contrast to adversarial proceedings such as arbitration or litigation that result in a win-loss outcome) equips it to handle conflicts of all kinds: from workplace disputes to broken contracts to international conflicts. International mediation follows this process of “assisting two or more contending parties to find a solution without resorting to force”. Due to its immense potential, the Charter of the United Nations under Article 33 recognises the promise of international mediation for peaceful resolution of international disputes. Brokering peace Throughout history, individuals, countries and organizations (such as the International Committee of the Red Cross) have acted as third parties and have brokered peace between conflicting nations. Described by theorists as a form of power brokerage or a political problem solving process, international mediation has been used to resolve conflicts for hundreds of years. The best known example is of U.S. President Jimmy Carter who mediated peace between Israel and Egypt (known as the Camp David Accords of 1978) that has resulted in 44 years of peace.    Scholarship on neuroscience proves that emotions have a significant influence on cognitive processes (Kragel and LaBar 2016). If emotions are running high between conflicting parties it is very likely that either or both parties get re-active (i.e., to act without thinking). Ambrose Bierce wrote: “speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you will ever regret’. This is where a neutral third party can act as a ;go-between’ (termed: shuttle diplomacy) to gather more information and help the parties identify their hidden interests. This helps in ensuring that conflicting parties keep their eyes on the prize. More importantly, the mediator shutting between parties helps in limiting or reducing re-active devaluation – a cognitive barrier where the disputants wrongfully construe the conflict as a zero sum game. As a result, even the value of a genuine offer coming directly from an adversary is automatically reduced in the eyes of the receiver. Therefore, subject to context and the consent of parties, the mediator can either play a passive role to facilitate communication or a more active role and exert more influence on the content of the discussion and the final solution. Focusing on the priority Certainly, international mediation has a lot to offer. But is it the right choice in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?    Despite bilateral peace talks Russian air strikes continue on Ukrainian cities resulting in civilian casualties. The voice against dictatorships will want to hold the Russian President Vladimir Putin guilty of violation the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their additional protocols. It may appear that opting for mediation legitimizes past violations of international law and civilian killings. Or does it even amount to trading justice for peace? The answer is a bit more complicated. Mediation is a tool that avoids ‘being re-active’. More importantly, it helps focus on the number one priority, i.e., the safety of the Ukrainian people through a complete ceasefire. Furthermore, a mediator’s skill of strategic empathy (also a tool of statecraft) will further help understand Mr. Putin’s underlying drivers and constraints.    Furthermore, scholars like Zartman (1981) have argued that power parity between disputing parties is pivotal to the success of internation mediation. Indeed, there exists a huge power imbalance between Russia and Ukraine – Russia commands the world’s second most powerful military, whereas Ukraine, a nation of rightly 44 million people, was relying on the pinky promises (or security assurance) made by Russia in the Budapest Memorandum. However, U.S. President joe Biden’s strategy of making American intelligence (about Russia’s intention to invade Ukraine under false pretexts) publicly accessible, equipped Ukraine with the ‘power of solidarity’ which balanced or even tipped the scale in its favour. As a result, Russia is cornered, Ukraine has the solidarity of the world, Germany shed its pacifism and took a harsher stand against Russia by halting the Nord Stream 2 project, and Finland and Sweden are being pushed closer to NATO membership… Thus, opting for mediation is the only way left for Russia to save face and escape the sanctions that have crippled its economy.    For the West, going ahead with mediation presents itself as an opportunity to build a Europe of common security, common prosperity and peace. Simply put, this could be a starting point to include Russia in the security infrastructure of Europe (like it did with East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989) – an opportunity that was missed after the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991. India fits the bill Mediation is certainly feasible between Russia and Ukraine because there exists a willingness to talk. But for this to commence, the approval of the parties concerned will be crucial. Much depends on the identity of the mediator. With the recent diplomatic visits to India, by the U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser for International Economics, the British Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and Minister for Women and Equalities, and the Russia Foreign Minister, shows that the world expects India to play a more active role in the Ukrainian crisis.    This is India’s golden chance to establish itself as a global power. More importantly, plying mediator in this dispute is in India’s long term interest in countering the China threat – especially with a growing “no limits” partnership between Russia and China. Moreover, with the rise of China and its belligerence, its relationship with the West has soured. As a result, the U.S. and its allies need India as a strategic partner to balance the rise of China in the Indo-Pacific; it is for this reason, that India is now a member of the Quad.    For now, India is right is not taking sides. Its relationship with the then-Soviet Union was forged to balance against-China (as the U.S. was cosying up to China). But with the Ukraine invasion and western sanctions, Russia is now more dependent on China. Hence, if India wants the best of both worlds, it must step up and live up to its claim of becoming a ‘Vishwa-Guru’ (or world leader).     Push the policy needle forward on migrant support Amidst scattered experimentation now, the Centre must offer strategic policy guidance for inter-State coordination MUKTA NAIK & VARUN AGGARWAL Only two years ago, in the wake of a nationwide lockdown, India was left shocked by the plight of migrant workers walking hundreds of kilometers, facing hunger, exhaustion and violence, to get to the safety of their home villages. The dire circumstances of the migrants tugged at our collective heartstrings. They became the focus of large-scale relief efforts by governments and civil society alike. The Government ramped up the One Nation One Ration Card (ONORC) project, announced the Affordable Rental Housing Complexes (ARHC) scheme, set up the e-Shram portal and began to draft a migration policy. These initiatives generated hope that the migrant crisis of 2020 would be a turning point, setting India firmly on a policy path by offering adequate citizenship and the accompanying social, economic and political rights to internal migrants. Still a tale of distress Two years on, migrant distress has disappeared from our television screens but continues to be a lived reality. Repeated surveys have found that the incomes of migrant households levels, even after returning to cities. Migrants are finding less work and their children eating less. The post-1991 poverty alleviation of almost 300 million Indians, driven by migration out of farm work, is being undone. Despite this, cohesive migration policy guidance remains elusive. Instead, disconnected policy initiatives and technocratic fixes chase specific agendas while nativism re-asserts itself through domicile quotas and reservations. The agenda of migrant inclusion has been pushed to periphery of our collective consciousness.    This is not something India can afford to precipitate. Today, a third of the nation’s workforce is mobile. Migrants fuel critical sectors such as manufacturing, constructions, hospitality, logistics and commercial agriculture. Despite clear economic and humanitarian reasoning to bring migrants back into the policy discourse, the current policy scenario is at best fragmented and at worst waning. To course correct, we must recognise the entrenched structural constraints slowing the migration policy momentum and take strategic steps to push the policy needle forward. A politicized phenomenon First, we must recognise that migration is a highly politicized phenomenon in India. States are highly influenced by the political economy of migration. ‘Destination States’ experience a tension between economic needs, which require migrant labour, and political needs, which promote nativist policies that impose domicile restrictions on employment and social security. On the flip side, the ‘sending States’ are highly motivated to serve their “own people” because they vote in their source villages. This fragmented policy response to internal migration follows from State-specific calculations on what political dividends might be reaped (or lost) by investing fiscal and administrative resources towards migrants. Moreover, development policy in India has bet big on rural development as an antidote to migration. This widespread ‘sedentary bias’ continues to influence policy even though migration is an important pathway for impoverished marginalized rural households to find economic security (and social emancipation).    Second, migrants are a perennially fuzzy category in policy discourse, located inside two larger categories that have long troubled policymakers: the unorganized worker and the urban poor. Even the e-Shram portal, which has made impressive progress in registering unorganized workers, has been unable to accurately distinguish and target migrants. Policy interventions in major urban destinations continue to conflate the urban poor with low-income migrants. Hence, slum development continues as the primary medium for alleviating migrant concerns, while in reality, most migrants live on worksites that are entirely out of the policy gaze. There seems to be an implicit assumption in the policy circles: if we cannot solve the problems of informality, how can we help migrants? Further, it is assumed that migrants will be automatically catered to with the formalization of the economy, the labour market, the housing market, finance and so on. The pushes the timeline for addressing the migrant issue far out. It is no longer an urgent priority. Gaps in the data Third, migration policy discourse is seemingly paralyzed by the now well-acknowledged failure of official datasets to capture the actual scale and the frequency of internal migration in India. Data systems designed to periodically record only one spatial location have posed great challenges to welfare delivery for up to 500 million people who are part of multi-locational migrant households. The novel corona virus pandemic has placed a sharp focus on problems such as educating and vaccinating those children who accompany their migrant parents, or ensuring that migrant women avail maternity benefits at multiple locations.    Policy in India often emerges from the ground up, taking decades to cement into national law and standard practice. We have seen this in education and food security. In migration too, despite the structural constraints outlined above, it is heartening to see many initiatives on the ground that have immense potential to influence strategic shifts in migration policy. For example, many States have initiated data projects that can track migrants and generate dynamic real-time data that aid welfare delivery. Maharashtra's Migration Tracking System (MTS), which focuses on women and children has been successfully piloted in five districts. Chhattisgarh’s State Migrant Workers Policy is premised on registering migrant workers at source and tracking them through phone-based outreach system.     In States, a heightened awareness about migrants’ issues is locating initiatives in departments other than labour, which has traditionally been the nodal department for migrant welfare. For example, Maharashtra’s MTS is located within the Women and Child Development Department. However, there is further need for multisectoral approaches underpinned by a strategic convergence across government departments and initiatives. Odisha’s Planning and Convergence Department, which offers an institutional mechanism for inter-departmental coordination, is one possible model. The Centre has a lead role In this scenario of well-meaning but scattered experimentation, migrants would be well served if the Centre played a proactive role by offering strategic policy guidance and a platform for inter-State coordination. State-level political economy constraints make the Centre’s role particularly crucial in addressing issues of inter-State migrant workers at ‘destination States’. The NITI Aayog’s Draft Policy on Migrant Workers is a positive step forward in articulating policy priorities and indication suitable institutional frameworks, and deserves a speedy release.    At a time when economic recovery and inclusive growth are urgent policy goals, migration policy can hardly afford to gestate. Strategic initiatives to provide migrates safety nets regardless of location as well as bolster their ability to migrate safely and affordably must keep up the momentum towards migrant-supportive policy.

 

Read More

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.

 

Read More