THE HINDU EDITORIAL- MARCH, 28,2022

 

THE HINDU EDITORIAL- MARCH 28, 2022

 

Lotus pose Yogi Adityanath is now central to the BJP’s political ambitions for the whole country Yogi Adityanath has become the first Chief Minister in Uttar Pradesh to be sworn in for a second successive term after having completed a full give-year term. Among the 52 others who took oath with Mr. Adityanath on March 25 were Keshav Prasad Maurya and Brajesh Pathak who are deputy Chief Ministers. The composition of the Council of Ministers signifies the continuing efforts of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to balance the claims of various caste groups within the Hindutva umbrella. Several new faces have been added and several others dropped, to infuse the new Ministry with fresh energy and optics. As many as 22 Ministers from the previous term were removed, of whom 11 had lost the elections. Upper castes have got a lion’s share of the berths – 21 of the 52, with the Brahmins and Rajputs in particular, who got seven each. These communities rallied behind the BJP like never before in 2022, forming the core of the Party’s social base. Non-Yadav OBSs that largely stayed with BJP have also been rewarded, though to a lesser extent. Dalit support for the BJP has been acknowledged, with nine of them making it to the Council. The BJP has finally made a serious attempt at wooing the Muslim vote bank by including Danish Azad Ansari, a Pasmanda or backward Muslim. Rising through the ranks of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, he has been working on the ground to create a connection between Muslims and the BJP.        The BJP hopes that the distribution of power among various social groups effected through the Council’s composition will stand it in good stead ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha election. The criticality of U.P. in its national plan cannot be overstated – it contributes 20% of the party’s current strength in the Lok Sabha. The party will do everything to keep its U.P. house in order. The central leadership of the BJP had a significant say in the selection of Ministers, But a balancing has been sought with the Chief Minister’s views. Mr. Adityanath has emerged as a leader of his own standing through his first term and this election victory. Controversial as it is, his aggressive style and steamrolling administrative tactics have won him tremendous popularity. He has become a new icon of BJP politics. For good reasons, the 49-year-old is being seen as a potential successor to Mr. Modi who is 71. He is likely to fashion his second term with that view firmly in mind. India’s most populous State is also a severely underdeveloped one. His governance in U.P. can influence the course of the country. Mr. Adityanath’s second term in U.P. will, therefore, be watched beyond the State, and around the world.                                       Talking and listening India and China will find it difficult to simply pick up the threads of their conversation Brief as it was, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit to Delhi on Friday appears to have left behind more questions than answers on its purpose. The visit was a first by a senior Chinese official since the military standoff along the LAC began in April 2020. Since then, despite 15 rounds of border commander talks and eight rounds of meetings of the special Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs (WMCC), friction areas remain – including Patrol Point (PP) 15, Demchok and Depsang – where troops have been amassed on both sides. However, it appeared that during his meetings, separately with NSA Ajit Doval, followed by External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, Mr. Wang proposed no new mechanism or formulation to break the logjam in those talks, as had been the case earlier. Instead, the Chinese side only repeated that India must put the differences on the border issue “in the proper place in bilateral relations”, and revive bilateral talks on all issues. The suggestion was part of a three-step formula, according to a Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement that included taking a long-term, ‘civilizational’ view of India-China ties, seeing each others’ development as a “win-win” and cooperating at multilateral sphere. The last point was a reference to China’s turn to host the BRICS summit later this year, which Mr. Wang hoped Prime Minister Modi would attend, and India’s turn to host the SCO and G-20 summits next year, where Chinese President Xi Jinping would be among the invitees.     However, neither Mr. Wang nor his hosts in the Government answered why, if his message did not differ from the past, he was received in Delhi at all. That he was merely in the region – visiting Pakistan for an OIC conference; Afghanistan to meet with the Taliban ahead of another conference in Beijing, and Nepal to further bilateral cooperation and infrastructure projects – and decided to “drop in” does not seem to suffice as a reason, when bilateral ties remain at a standstill. Nor does it explain why the Modi government, which has consistently said it would only hold bilateral talks about resolving the border standoff, departed from this precept to discuss bilateral and international issues. Neither side announced Mr. Wang’s arrival until the first meetings on Friday, indicating that there is something more behind the scenes. It is also possible that his outreach stems from a desire to compare notes on Ukraine, where India and China find themselves at odds with the western sanctions regime that threatens to isolate Russia and split global transactions into a “dollar vs non-dollar” system, while also finding themselves not entirely comfortable with Mr. Putin’s actions. Regardless of any common understanding on other issues, however, it is clear that New Delhi and Beijing cannot simply pick up the threads of their conversation until there is a full understanding of events since April disengagement of troops, is completed.

The era of an unemployed India    There are many indices of proof that seriously contradict the tall claims of employment generation in India MAYA JOHN Reports on and the visuals of the recent agitations by railway job applicants reveal a widespread problem of massive job insecurity among India’s youth. Alarming figures of unemployment have been recurrent even before the huge dislocation unleashed by lockdowns imposed in 2020-21 in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Much before the pandemic, the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) reported a 6.1% unemployment rate in 2017-18, the worst in over four decades. The picture has proved more dismal in the ensuing months since April-May of 2020.     For instance, in December 2021, the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) estimated that nearly 53 million Indians were unemployed, a large proportion of whom were women. The unemployment rate was hovering at 7.91% in December 2021, and though there has been some talk of a dip in unemployment in January 2022, the figure still stands at a worrying 6.57%. Exposing claims Percentages and data spun out by governmental agencies and policy think-tanks are open to contestation, but there are other indices of proof that seriously contradict the tall claims of employment generation. One such index is the downward pressure unleashed by the influx of overqualified youth aspiring for middle and lower rung government jobs, which, despite their modest pay, are highly coveted given the greater job security ascribed to them.     Expectedly then, having advertised over 35,000 posts, the Railway Recruitment Board was swamped with over 1.25 crore applications; a significant proportion of which were postgraduate degree holders. This created massive insecurity among a section of candidates who met the minimum eligibility but were being forced to compete with candidates having higher educational credentials.      With government jobs being limited, and reducing in number due to the contractualisation and outsourcing of several substantive posts, intense competition persists across various categories of jobs; a point brought to light yet again by the recent Railways’ recruitment controversy. As clarified by the Railway Recruitment Board and Union Railway Minister, for the second stage of testing that stoked protests, the huge number of aspirants for lowest rights up to the highest level of jobs advertised, eventually compelled the authorities to shortlist 20 times the number of candidates for all levels. Explaining the scramble Shockingly, advertisements for even a handful of lower rung government jobs attract an overwhelming number of applications, leading at times to the withdrawal of such advertisements. In September 2021, news reports highlighted that among 18,000 applicants for some 42 posts (peon, gardener and cook) in the Himachal Pradesh secretariat, there were hundreds of doctorate and other postgraduate applicants. Earlier, in March 2021, more than 27,000 candidates with degrees such as BA, BSc, MA, MSc, MCom, MBA, engineering, etc. had applied for 13 positions for a peon’s job in the Panipat district court. Likewise, for 62 posts of messengers in the Uttar Pradesh police, in August 2018, there were a total of 93,000 applicants; 3,700 were PhD holders and 50,000 were graduates, This particular job vacancy required an education level of Class V and the selection criterion comprised a self-declaration that the candidate knew how to ride a bicycle.     The desperate scramble for government jobs stems in no uncertain terms from the high job insecurity (easy hire and fire), poor basic pay, and long hours of work that characterize the bulk of jobs in the private sector. Historically, only a small number of employer-employee work relations in India - associated mostly with the formal sector – have been subject to state regulation. However, in recent decades, there has been a steady decline of state regulation of labour-capital relations in the formal sector. This deregulation has been coupled with a concerted push toward rapid privatization of the public sector. Together, these developments have contributed significantly to periodic unemployment among both skilled and less skilled workforces, in addition to reducing avenues of gainful employment for new entrants in the job market. A spillover effect The ramifications of this overall process are multifold. At one level, enhanced deregulation of employer-employee work relations in the formal sector has triggered periodic unemployment of higher skilled workers, who have been spilling over into and crowding lower-skilled, informal sector jobs. Likewise, the spillover effect of periodic unemployment within middle-rung and higher-rung professional jobs in India’s job market has pushed more qualified youth to crowd lower rung government jobs.      This tendency itself has rendered a deep crisis for those with lower educational qualifications who strive for the more modest government jobs, and for whom such employment has traditionally been envisaged.       Reduced expenditure by the state on health, education and the social sector as a whole has also ensured inadequate employment generations, despite the fact that the demand for ‘public goods’ has been growing exponentially. For a country with growing educational needs, especially with large numbers seeking to escape inherited poverty through avenues opened up by education, the marked shortage of government schools and public-funded universities is alarming to say the least.       A closer look at the higher education sector itself reveals a steady increase in the number of student applicants. The scenario naturally calls for many more job recruitments of qualified teachers through the creation of new public-funded Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) and an expansion of existing ones. However, successive governments continue to restrict and even delay recruitment of teachers to existing public-funded HEIs. For examply, in a large public-funded university such as the University of Delhi, a recruitment crisis has intensified over the years with over 4,500 teaching posts being filled by ad hoc teachers and appointments to permanent positions being stalled repeatedly. Antinomy of eligibility This recruitment crisis is also the result of an inexplicable delay in the grant of the second tranche of teaching positions that was to accompany institutional expansion in the wake of implementation of reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBSs). A recipe for a complete disaster continues to unfold in such universities as a large, highly skilled workforce of serving teachers defensively holds on to insecure temporary job contracts as more eligible fresh candidates enter job market. One of the contentious consequences of such heightened competitions has been the enforcement of higher and higher qualifications for entry-level teaching jobs in public-funded HEIs.      In this way, another index of mounting job insecurity and unemployment is the arbitrary enhancement of educational qualifications stipulated for recruitment into better-paid government jobs, as well as new criteria for admission into professional training institutions. This tendency has not only manifested itself in public-funded HEIs wherein entry-level teaching positions now mandatorily require a PhD degree in addition to a Master’s degree and UGC-NET qualification. It is also evident in the barrage of common entrance tests for highly sought-after educational degrees such as in medicine (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test, or NEET), as well as centralized eligibility tests for recruitment into jobs such as school teaching (Central Teacher Eligibility Test, or CETET). As the number of seats and vacancies fail to be augmented, we see a systematic effort to ruthlessly eliminate a growing number of aspirants using astute tests and arbitrary criteria.      In the backdrop of a large number of skilled and overqualified people languishing in the throes of unemployment, the shrill rhetoric of ‘skill India’ rings hollow. We will see more instances of frustration and agitations by the youth in response to rampant unemployment. For the scores of educated aspiring youth, transcending the prevailing logic of the economy is a crucial starting point for envisaging a world free of unemployment. As economy that creates fewer jobs is one which overworks some while rendering large numbers unemployed. A tired India and an unemployed India are simply two sides to the same coin. The youth realise that their access to the basics – education, health and livelihood –depends on their desperate search for dignified employment. A transformation of circumstances awaits newer sensibilities and a sense of solidarities.     Poverty rose but income inequality fell There are signs that this pandemic has not followed the usual script – of the poor bearing the brunt of the pain ANUP MALANI, ARPIT GUPTA & BARTEK WODA COVID-19 had upended Indian society. Over two-thirds of the country has been infected by COVID-19 and perhaps five million or so people have died, directly or indirectly, from the pandemic. The economy too has taken a beating. Even though there has been a V-shaped recovery, output remains about 19% lower than 2019.      In macroeconomic crises, including the oil shock of 1990-91 or the global liquidity crisis of 2007-08, many expect the poor to bear the brunt of the pain. They are the most vulnerable, without contractual protections and adequate safety nets. But there are signs that this pandemic has not followed that script.     Poverty certainly rose during the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined monthly data from nearly 2,00,000 households with a total of one million members from the Consumer Pyramids Household survey through 2021. We found that extreme poverty, defined by the World Bank as the percentage of the population with an income below $1.90, rose from 7.6% in November 2019 to 11.7% in July 2021. Income inequality However, income inequality actually fell. In 2019, the average monthly income of households in the top 25% and bottom 25% of the income distribution was approximately 45,999 rupees and 8,000 rupees, respectively, in urban areas, and 22,500 rupees and 7,500 rupees, respectively, in rural areas. While the average monthly income of the top quartile in urban areas fell almost 30%, to 32,500 rupees by July 2021, the monthly income of the bottom quartile in July 2021 remained at pre-pandemic levels. In rural areas, the top quartile income fell by perhaps 20%, while the bottom quartile income grew slightly during the same period. The result is that inequality, measured as the percentage change in the income of the top quartile minus the income in the bottom quartile, fell by 15-20 percentage points. This is holds saw larger drops in income all along the income scale, in rural and urban areas, within each State, and even within caste groups.      This remarkable finding is not unprecedented. Historians observed the same dynamic during the plague in 14the century Europe. Given how much the world economy has changed since then, however, the explanations for India’s experience will differ. Three sources of income To learn why inequality fell during the pandemic, we examined three sources of household income: government transfers, business profits and labour income. Government transfers are cash or in-kind payments. Profits may be from any business, be it a food cart, a farm, or a manufacturing plant. Labour income is wages earned from hourly work or employment contracts.      Government payments to the poor cannot explain the decline in inequality. To be sure, income support was not insubstantial. Households received roughly 400 rupees per month in urban areas and nearly 500 rupees per month in rural areas during the lockdown and Delta wave. They received roughly half that much during the rest of the pandemic. However, even when government transfers were netted out from income, income inequality fell by over 20% points by July 2021.       Business profits play a bigger role than transfers. The rich saw a larger decline in business income and depended more on that income than the poor. While just 7% of a bottom quartile household’s income is from a business, nearly 15% of a top quartile’s household’s income is from a business. Unlike labour income, business income is volatile because it is susceptible to changes in demand, and thus to aggregate income. We find that business income of the top quartile is four times more sensitive to the aggregate performance of the economy than the business income of the bottom quartile. Given the large negative effect of COVID-19 on the economy, this suggests that some of the disproportionate losses of the rich operate through business income.       Labour income, however, plays a critical role (Table). Labour income is just over 65% and 80% of the income of the top 25% and bottom 25% of households. These are larger shares than those of government transfers or business profits. To explain the decline in labour income, we looked at supply-side explanations.       Looking at supply, one might suspect the rich chose to work less than the poor, perhaps out of fear of contracting COVID-19. That was also our conjecture, but it proved wrong. When the economy contracted, people lost jobs and income. They tried to compensate by finding alternate work, sometimes even in other occupations. While this seems a natural response for the bottom 25%, it was even more true for the top 25%. While the minimum amount that the poor were willing to accept to take a job fell roughly 40%, the minimum amount fell more than 45% for the rich. Demand for labour The better explanation for the disproportionate loss of labour income among the top quartile households is that demand for their labour fell more. The rich tend to work in the service, and demand for services fell more than demand for other sectors. While 30% of workers in bottom quartile households work in the service sector, 45% of workers from the top quartile households do. During the pandemic, consumer spending on services fell by 30%-40%, far more than the decline in spending on manufacturing or agriculture.       The situation was reversed in manufacturing. That sector employs a larger share of bottom quartile workers than top quartile ones: 35% versus 15%. But manufacturing declined less than 20% during the pandemic. The progressive contraction of demand for services swamped the regressive contraction of demand for manufacturing.       To be clear, our analysis does not suggest that the pandemic was good for the Indian economy. The loss of life and rise in poverty make it one of the larger disasters the country has borne. The reduction in inequality would be a silver lining if it were accomplished by lowering poverty rather than reducing the income of the rich.       Nevertheless, by understanding the decline in inequality during the pandemic we can assess prospects for inequality after it ends. Once demand for services rises, along with aggregate income, both demand for the labour of the rich and the business income of that group will likely return. There is a risk that inequality will return to pre-pandemic levels.

 

Read More

THE HINDU EDITORIAL- MARCH 23, 2022

 

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.

 

Read More