#223 On Debates and Discussions
Independence Day Special, Recent Policy Updates, and Proposed Changes to the Sedition Law
India Policy Watch #1: Mixed Bag
Insights on current policy issues in India
— RSJ
Happy 77th Independence Day!
Our usual practice in the independence day edition has been to write about debates and discussions that shaped the foundation of India. We will do so in this edition too. But before that, I thought I would run you through a motley bag of headlines during this week and what they mean for policy and governance.
First up is this beautiful news report that suggests no force on earth can stop a bad idea whose time has come. Here’s the Economic Times reporting from its “sources”:
After making a license mandatory for imports of personal computers and laptops, the government is looking at other products on which such curbs could be imposed such as cameras, printers, hard disks, parts of telephonic and telegraphic devices, said people aware of the matter. The local demand for these products is substantial and their heavy imports need immediate intervention to push domestic production opportunities...
Separately, the government is also said to be reviewing other high-import products such as urea, antibiotics, turbo-jets, lithium-ion accumulators, refined copper, machines and mechanical appliances, solar and photovoltaic cells, aluminium scrap, sunflower seed oil, and cashew nuts.
Cashew nuts too.
Yeah, why not? We should just aim for a zero-import economy because we can make everything here, and local demand is huge. We will become an economic superpower the day after tomorrow (not tomorrow, because tomorrow we will issue the gazette). This is how every country in the world can become rich and prosperous. No idea what we were thinking back in 1991 when we were dismantling license raj and knocking down that import duty regime. I have an idea of where we are going with this line of thinking because I have read the post-independence economic history of India. This is a very seductive idea for most ordinary people to whom imports means ‘ghulami’. This is a very rich vein of ignorance to mine for electoral, and heaven knows what, other gains.
We also had a no-confidence motion moved against the government this week. The outcome was a foregone conclusion, but it was interesting to read on the line of attack by the opposition, which perhaps foreshadows how the 2024 election debates will play out. The core of the opposition attack was focused on PM Modi. There’s a realisation, perhaps late, that, unlike assembly elections where the opposition can negate the Modi factor because he’s not on the ticket, it is impossible to do so in the Lok Sabha elections. There is no way to get around his popularity and attack his policies or the failures of his government. So, the focus of the opposition speeches was the PM’s record on what is seen to be his areas of strength - internal security, dealing with China, economic management and law and order. The conventional wisdom is to not take the PM on directly because he’d like nothing more than the elections to become a presidential fight-off. I think the opposition has concluded that it is inevitable that it is going to come to that. And the only way to fight this is by taking PM Modi’s track record head-on. I’m unsure about how this will go, but it is better than the approach in 2019, and it will make for a very personalised campaign next year. The PM, in his response, stuck to the script and went after his favourite whipping boys of parivaarvaad, dynasty and subtle hints on how foreign powers inimical to India’s interest are helping out the opposition. This pitch will be queered in the coming months.
Separately, on the last day of the current parliament session, the Home Minister introduced 3 new bills that seek to dramatically overhaul the ‘stuck in 19th century’ Indian legal system. The Hindu reports:
Mr. Shah introduced the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Bill, 2023, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Bill, 2023 and Bharatiya Sakshya (BS) Bill, 2023 that will replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Criminal Procedure Act, 1898, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 respectively and said the changes were done to provide speedy justice and creating a legal system that keeps contemporary needs and aspirations of the people. He requested that the bills be sent to the parliamentary standing committee on home affairs.
The Bill proposes 313 amendments that will bring revolutionary changes to the criminal justice system, Mr. Shah said.
I think we should have a good debate in the standing committee on this overhaul which is long due. Clearly, this isn’t going to happen during the course of next year. But if done well with wide-ranging consultations from all stakeholders, this could bring the Indian criminal legal system to the 21st century and ease the lives of citizens. I also think this is a precursor to the union government introducing some kind of a uniform civil code bill in the next session of parliament to make it an issue in the run-up to Lok Sabha elections. I can foresee a grand Ram temple inauguration at Ayodhya in January of next year while there’s a raging debate on uniform civil code running simultaneously.
Also, last week was the monetary policy committee (MPC) meeting of the RBI, where it stayed true to the script and continued its pause on interest rate hikes, although the message was a bit more hawkish this time. Inflation concerns remain with vegetable prices zooming, and the government will be keen to keep inflation under check in an election year. That also accounted for the decision of the RBI to raise the cash reserve ratio (CRR), which is the minimum cash that banks are expected to park with RBI. This will suck about INR 60k-70k crores of liquidity out of the system, which will help in taming inflation. I guess this active liquidity management will remain a focus for the rest of the year.
Lastly, China’s second-quarter growth slowed to 0.8 per cent on a sequential basis which surprised many who thought the post-lockdown opening up would have meant stronger growth. What’s more interesting to study is its real estate sector accounts for over 20 per cent of its GDP, and that had brakes slammed on it a couple of years back by the Chinese government. After the Evergrande crisis, we now have Country Garden, possibly a more stable and better-run real estate giant, with over $190 billion in assets, which is in danger of default. As CNN reports:
China’s property industry has been mired in a historic downturn in the past two years. Households have grown reluctant to purchase new homes, as the now-defunct Covid curbs, falling home prices and rising unemployment discouraged would-be buyers. A series of major defaults by property giants in 2021 also undermined confidence in the sector and led to many home buyers paying for apartments they never received, sparking rare protests.
New home sales by China’s 100 biggest developers dropped by 33% in July from a year ago, marking the steepest monthly decline since July 2022, according to industry statistics released last week. Investors see the revival of the sector as crucial to the recovery of the economy after three years of self-imposed coronavirus pandemic isolation.
Recent signals from top policymakers suggest Beijing is getting increasingly worried about growth and have recognized the need to bolster the sector. Last Monday, Premier Li Qiang pledged to “adjust and optimize” policies to ensure the healthy and stable development of the property market, urging cities to roll out measures that meet their own needs,
The problem with central planning and overconfidence in ‘managing’ the economy through top-down diktats is that it comes back and bites you in a bad way. China is learning the hard way that its structural economic problems have no easy answers. Maybe our policymakers (or whoever is drafting the economic policy) should draw a few lessons.
India Policy Watch #2: Foundations of Independent India
Insights on current policy issues in India
— RSJ
And now to the usual Independence Day extract from the past. I have spoken in the past about Tripurdaman Singh’s book Nehru: The Debates that Defined India.
Here’s an extract from a long series of mails exchanged between Nehru and Jinnah in 1938.
Quick context: Nehru and Jinnah exchanged a few letters where Nehru asked what were the substantive issues on which the Muslim League wanted assurances (or had demands). Jinnah, after dodging the issue for a while, sends an enclosure of an article from the New Times (March 1, 1938) that has a list of such demands from the Muslim League. It is quite enlightening to read how some of these still find resonance in today’s India, which further strengthens my view that in some of the societal matters, our current times are quite similar to that of India between the wars almost a hundred years ago. I have put Nehru’s 14-point response to this article stating his stand (and possibly, the stand of his party), which should give a pause to those who think of Nehru and the Congress as ‘appeasers’ of the Muslim League’s demands during those times.
From Nehru’s letter:
I now deal with the various matters listed above.
1. The Fourteen Points, I had thought, were somewhat out of date. Many of their provisions have been given effect to by the Communal Award and in other ways, some others are entirely acceptable to the Congress; yet others require constitutional changes which, as I have mentioned above, are beyond our present competence. Apart from the matters covered by the Communal Award and those involving a change in the constitution, one or two matters remain which give rise to differences of opinion and which are still likely to lead to considerable argument.
2. The Congress has clearly stated its attitude towards the Communal Award, and it comes to this that it seeks alterations only on the basis of mutual consent of the parties concerned. I do not understand how anyone can take objection to this attitude and policy. If we are asked to describe the Award as not being anti-national, that would be patently false. Even apart from what it gives to various groups, its whole basis and structure are anti-national and come in the way of the development of national unity. As you know it gives an overwhelming and wholly undeserving weightage to the European elements in certain parts of India. If we think in terms of an independent India, we cannot possibly fit in this Award with it. It is true that under stress of circumstances we have sometimes to accept as a temporary measure something that is on the face of it anti-national. It is also true that in the matters governed by the Communal Award we can only find a satisfactory and abiding solution by the consent and goodwill of the parties concerned. That is the Congress policy.
3. The fixing of the Muslims’ share in the state services by statutory enactment necessarily involves the fixing of the shares of other groups and communities similarly. This would mean a rigid and compartmental state structure which will impede progress and development. At the same time it is generally admitted that state appointments should be fairly and adequately distributed and no community should have cause to complain. It is far better to do this by convention and agreement. The Congress is fully alive to this issue and desires to meet the wishes of various groups in the fullest measure so as to give to all minority communities, as stated in No. 11 of the Fourteen Points, ‘an adequate share in all the services of the state and in local self-governing bodies having due regard to the requirements of efficiency’. The state today is becoming more and more technical and demands expert knowledge in its various departments. It is right that, if a community is backward in this technical and expert knowledge, special efforts should be made to give it this education to bring it up to a higher level. I understand that at the Unity Conference held at Allahabad in 1933 or thereabouts, a mutually satisfactory solution of this question of state services was arrived at.
4. As regards protection of culture, the Congress has declared its willingness to embody this in the fundamental laws of the constitution. It has also declared that it does not wish to interfere in any way with the personal law of any community.
5. I am considerably surprised at the suggestions that the Congress should take in hand the agitation in connection with the Shahidganj Mosque. That is a matter to be decided either legally or by mutual agreement. The Congress prefers in all such matters the way of mutual agreement and its services can always be utilized for this purpose where there is no opening for them and a desire to this effect on the part of the parties concerned. I am glad that the Premier of the Punjab has suggested that this is the only satisfactory way to a solution of the problem.
6. The right to perform religious ceremonies should certainly be guaranteed to all communities. The Congress resolution about this is quite clear. I know nothing about the particular incident relating to a Punjab village which has been referred to. No doubt many instances can be gathered together from various parts of India where petty interferences take place with Hindu, Muslim or Sikh ceremonies. These have to be tactfully dealt with wherever they arise. But the principle is quite clear and should be agreed to.
7. As regards cow-slaughter there has been a great deal of entirely false and unfounded propaganda against the Congress suggesting that the Congress was going to stop it forcibly by legislation. The Congress does not wish to undertake any legislative action in this matter to restrict the established rights of the Muslims.
8. The question of territorial distribution has not arisen in any way. If and when it arises it must be dealt with on the basis of mutual agreement of the parties concerned.
9. Regarding the Bande Mataram song the Working Committee issued a long statement in October last to which I would invite your attention. First of all, it has to be remembered that no formal national anthem has been adopted by the Congress at any time. It is true, however, that the Bande Mataram song has been intimately associated with Indian nationalism for more than thirty years and numerous associations of sentiment and sacrifice have gathered round it. Popular songs are not made to order, nor can they be successfully imposed. They grow out of public sentiment. During all these thirty or more years the Bande Mataram song was never considered as having any religious significance and was treated as a national song in praise of India. Nor, to my knowledge, was any objection taken to it except on political grounds by the Government. (some edits here)........But to compel large numbers of people to give up what they have long valued and grown attached to is to cause needless hurt to them and injure the national movement itself. It would be improper for a national organization to do this.
10. About Urdu and Hindi I have previously written to you and have also sent you my pamphlet on ‘The Question of Language’. The Congress has declared in favour of guarantees for languages and culture. I want to encourage all the great provincial languages of India and at the same time to make Hindustani, as written both in the Nagri and Urdu scripts, the national language. Both scripts should be officially recognized and the choice should be left to the people concerned. In fact this policy is being pursued by the Congress Ministries.
11. The Congress has long been of the opinion that joint electorates are preferable to separate electorates from the point of view of national unity and harmonious co-operation between the different communities. But joint electorates, in order to have real value, must not be imposed on unwilling groups. Hence the Congress is quite clear that their introduction should depend on their acceptance by the people concerned. This is the policy that is being pursued by the Congress Ministries in regard to Local bodies. (rest edited out to keep this concise).
12. The national tricolour flag was adopted originally in 1929 by the Congress after full and careful consultation with eminent Muslim, Sikh and other leaders. Obviously a country and national movement must have a national flag representing the nation and all communities in it. No communal flag can represent the nation. If we did not possess a national flag now we would have to evolve one. The present national flag had its colours originally selected in order to represent the various communities, but we did not like to lay stress on this communal aspect of colours. Artistically I think the combination of orange, white and green resulted in a flag which is probably the most beautiful of all national flags. (rest edited out to keep this concise).
13. I do not understand what is meant by our recognition of the Muslim League as the one and only organization of Indian Muslims. Obviously the Muslim League is an important communal organization and we deal with it as such. But we have to deal with all organizations and individuals that come within our ken. We do not determine the measure or importance or distinction they possess. There are a large number, about a hundred thousand, of Muslims on the Congress rolls, many of whom have been our close companions, in prisons and outside, for many years and we value their comradeship highly. (edited).... And the other organizations, even though they might be younger and smaller, cannot be ignored.
14. I should like to know what is meant by coalition ministries. A ministry must have a definite political and economic programme and policy. Any other kind of ministry would be a disjointed and ineffective body, with no clear mind or direction. Given a common political and economic programme and policy, cooperation is easy. (edited).
Nehru ends with this reiteration of ending poverty of our people to be our primary goal. That holds true on the 77th Independence Day as well:
I am glad that I have had a glimpse into your mind through this correspondence as this enables me to understand a little better the problems that are before you and perhaps others. I agree entirely that it is the duty of every Indian to bring about [a] harmonious joint effort of all of us for the achievement of India’s freedom and the ending of the poverty of her people. For me, and I take it for most of us, the Congress has been a means to that end and not an end in itself. It has been a high privilege for us to work through the Congress because it has drawn to itself the love of millions of our countrymen, and through their sacrifice and united effort, taken us a long way to our goal. But much remains to be done and we have all to pull together to that end.
Addendum
— Pranay Kotasthane
I’ll re-recommend a book from edition #60.
The Gandhi-Tagore debates. Few other things reveal more about India of those times than the series of exchanges between Gandhi and Tagore. Both great men used quintessentially Indian philosophical foundations and yet came to opposing conclusions on topics such as nationalism, freedom, and reason. Despite core disagreements in their worldviews, their dialogue continued for nearly 25 years in an exemplarily civil manner.
No wonder then that Jawaharlal Nehru had this to say about these debates:
"No two persons could probably differ so much as Gandhi and Tagore.. the surprising thing is that both of these men with so much in common and drawing inspiration from the same wells of wisdom and thought and culture, should differ from each other so greatly!... I think of the richness of India's age-long cultural genius, which can throw up in the same generation two such master-types, typical of her in every way, yet representing different aspects of her many-sided personality."
Thankfully, these letters have been compiled in an excellent book, The Mahatma and the Poet, by Sabyasachi Bhattacharya. Do consider taking some time off to read this collection. It’s worth it.
Here’s a mind map I made based on my reading of the book. It compiles the views of Gandhi and Tagore on significant issues such as nationalism, freedom, and reason.
India Policy Watch #3: Sedition Law to be Repealed, Really?
Insights on current policy issues in India
— Pranay Kotasthane
Of the three bills the Home Minister introduced in the Parliament, the discussion around sedition intrigued me. He said that the Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (colloquially called anti-sedition law) would be completely repealed while laws against terrorism and organised violence would be strengthened.
There has been some legal commentary around this topic already. Some have highlighted that the anti-sedition law has merely been replaced by an equivalent section 150 in the new bill. Legal experts have also highlighted the differences in alternative punishment under the section. But I thought it would make sense just to put the two sections adjacent to each other to analyse the precise differences. Here’s an annotated image showing the two sections.
So, what has changed really? Here is what I could infer. Fair warning: this is a conceptual discussion and not a legal one.
Sedition hasn’t been repealed. It’s colonial avataar has gone away (only slightly). Sedition laws can lie on a continuum. In dictatorships and party-states, sedition laws are applied only to criticisms of the government. That is, being anti-government itself is being seditious. This was true of the Indian Penal Code as well.
In most modern democracies, however, sedition laws punish only those anti-State actions which have the capability to directly challenge the State’s authority. Thus, criticism of the Republic of India would not count as sedition but inciting violence against the police would count as sedition. The new section no longer counts mere disaffection towards the government as a seditious offence.The new bill explicitly adds a new dimension of proscribing the encouragement of feelings of separatist activities. This expands its scope.
Separate sections deal with directly waging war against the government. Those sections have largely remained unchanged. But section 150, like the old section 124A is beyond direct acts of war. Like its predecessor, the new sections is still ambiguous and expansive enough for misuse. Dissent is not adequately protected. The Standing Committee will surely have a lot to discuss.
Finally, The Ministry needs to get better at drafting laws. Just see the Explanation in the new section. It completely misses saying that lawful acts opposing government “do not constitute an offence under this section”. To miss out such an important qualification for such an important law is just inexcusable. Looks like their drafting committee has the same copy-editing powers as this newsletter does.
HomeWork
Reading and listening recommendations on public policy matters
[Article] Renuka Sane argues against government funds to tackle gig-worker social security.
[Article] The US CHIPS Act completed a year as a law. Here’s an article by Vishwanath M and Pranay on lessons on state capacity from the US experience for India.
[Podcast] The latest Puliyabaazi is on Dependence, Vulnerability, Europe, Russia, India, and China.