14 January 2021: The Hindu Editorial Analysis

1.) Terror trail: On Pakistan action against terrorists.

Pakistan’s action against terrorists is welcome, but nowhere near enough.

GS-2: International relations: India and its neighbourhood- relations.

GS-2: Bilateral, regional and global groupings and agreements involving India and/or affecting India’s interests.

 

---

CONTEXT:

1. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar made his speech to the UN Security Council (UNSC).marking 20 years since the resolutions that announced a global commitment to the war against terror after the U.S. 9/11 attacks.

3.  “Political and religious” affinities to decide on issues of designation of terrorists, blocking and unblocking requests at the UNSC.

 

ABOUT:

1. Terrorism international framework: General UNSC resolutions on terrorism. Following the attacks on the United States in 2001, the UNSC issued resolution 1373 (2001).

2. The resolution 1373 requires all States to ensure that terrorism related offences and terrorist financing be treated as serious crimes.

 

Issues to overcome in fight against terrorism:

1. To strengthening all organisation of UN and to coordination in the agencies that check their terror financial resources.

2. World must acknowledge/defriend that terrorist organisations.

3. UNSC must curb the extortion and money laundering, drugs and wildlife trafficking use by terrorist to raise funds.

4. World also will overcome loopholes in digital security and the “anonymity” provided by block chain technology to access finances.

5. to strengthening the UNSC and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

6. To take action against country who wilfully provide financial assistance and safe havens for terrorism by UNSC.

 

Source: Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP)

Action plan against terrorism:

1. No if s and buts in this fight. “Nor should we allow terrorism to be justified and terrorists glorified.

2. All member states must fulfill their obligations enshrined in international counter terrorism instruments and conventions.

3. To not countenance double standards in this battle as there are no good or bad terrorists.

4. Reform of the working methods of UNSC committees dealing with sanctions and counter terrorism,

5. Transparency, accountability and effectiveness were the need of the day.

6. All country must firmly discourage exclusivist thinking that divides the world and harms our social fabric.

7. Countries must walk the talk against terrorism and commit to zero tolerance to the menace.

8. FATF should continue to identify and remedy weaknesses in anti-money laundering and counter-terror financing frameworks.

Slams Pak, takes a dig at China:

1. Cross-border terrorism is when the soil of one country is used to create terror or engage in terrorism against its neighbouring countries across the border. India is a victim of cross-border terrorism, whose source is Pakistan.

2. To link actions between the UN and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), Pakistan, wilfully provide financial assistance and safe havens”.

3. China, which has often blocked India’s efforts to designate individuals at the UNSC.

 

    “Face of terror”:

1. Terrorism represents a small portion of the overall global costs caused by violence, equivalent to $14.1 trillion in 2018, and in this, it differs from other types of violence like homicide, military conflict, and defense expenditure.

2. During 2018, along with the decline in terrorism, the economic repercussions caused by it have also lessened, falling to US$ 33 billion which is a total reduction of 38%.

3. The overall amount of women suicide attacks rose by 450%. On the other hand, over the same interval, male suicide attempts decreased by 47%.

4. The number of fatalities caused by the Taliban increased by just less than 71% to 6,103, comprising 38% of the total deaths worldwide.

5. Between the years 2014 and 2018, right-wing terrorism rose by 320% in the above-mentioned regions and continued in 2019.

6. Deaths caused by terrorist activities spreading to 71 nations compared to the 67 from the prior year. Afghanistan has taken the number one spot from Iraq for the first time since 2003.

 

Law against terrorism in India:

1. It is an upgrade on the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act TADA, which was allowed to lapse in 1995 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) was repealed in 2004.

2.  Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The Centre had amended UAPA, 1967, in August 2019 to include the provision of designating an individual as a terrorist.

 

Types of Terrorism::

1. Dissent Terrorism: Groups that rebel against the government of a country. Example: LTTE in Sri Lanka.

2. Left-wing/right-wing terrorism: ideological leanings on the extreme end of the left-right political spectrum

3. Religious terrorism: religious ideologies. Example(EX), ISIS.

4. Criminal terrorism: Terror groups engaged in terror acts for criminal profit.

5. cyber-terrorism, bioterrorism, etc.

 

Way forward:

1. The functioning UNSC 1267 Committee should be strengthened. The  complete implementation of UN Global Counter-Terrorism Coordination Compact that was agreed upon in 2018.

2. China approach: While China’s re-education internment camps in Xinjiang have raised questions about human rights.

3. A comprehensive and multidimensional strategy for the “War on Terror” must involve an integrated view of these strategic military and economic domains, among others.

4. It is necessary for countries fighting terrorism to learn more closely from their differences, rather than try to generalise from experience. Europe, India and China have different approach to fight ISIS radicalisation.

 

 

2.) Farm laws, their constitutional validity, and hope.

 In the event of further judicial intervention, there are grounds and an opportunity for the government to revisit the laws

GS-2: Separation of powers between various organs dispute redressal mechanisms and institutions.

GS-3: Issues related to direct and indirect farm subsidies and minimum support prices; Public Distribution System-objectives, functioning,

 

---

CONTEXT:

1. The Supreme Court passed an interim order in the on-going contestation between large sections of the farmers and the Centre over the new farm laws.

2. The apex Court, in its recent verdict on the petitions against the Centre's new farm laws and farmers' protest, has put on hold the three farm laws. It is willing to suspend the laws but not indefinitely.

3. The issue that needs to be settled by the top court is only the constitutional validity of the laws. In resolving a problem like the agitation by farmers against the laws, the centrality of Parliament in the legislative process in all its dimensions should not be lost sight of.

4. Once the Court decides the legality or constitutionality of a law, the political and legislative aspects of the issue will have to be dealt with only by Parliament

 

The situation now:

1. SC decided to set up a four-member committee to resolve the deadlock between the Centre and farmers.

2. It is not yet clear what impact the report of this committee will have on the final decision of the Supreme Court on the question of the constitutional validity of the farm laws.

 

Repercussions:

1. The Supreme Court is that if the Court upholds the validity of the laws, the agitation will not stop because the farmers’ demand is for the repeal of the laws.

2. The government might not repeal the law because it has invested a lot of its prestige is not so easy especially for a government which is extremely proud of its numerical majority in the Lok Sabha.

 

Ground may Challenge in 3 farm laws:

1. The constitutional validity of the farm laws has been challenged in the Supreme Court mainly on the ground that Parliament has no legislative competence to enact.

 

2. These laws, the subject matter of which is essentially in the State list. Under 7th schedule of Indian constitution.

3. The voting on the Farm Bills in the Rajya Sabha was not done in accordance with the rules of the House. These rules require the Chair to order the recording of votes (division) by members even when one member demands it. 

4. There was a violation of the rules of the House in passing the Bills by voice vote when there was a demand for division.

5. Voice vote is unrecognised, Article 100 says that all questions at any sitting of either House shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting.

 

Why agriculture is considered as States’ prerogative:

1. Agriculture is a State subject in the Constitution, listed as Entry 14 in the State List (List II).

2. Entry 26 in the State List refers to “trade and commerce within the State”.

3. Entry 27 in the State List refers to “production, supply and distribution of goods”.

4. Entry 28 refers to “markets and fairs”.

5. For these reasons, intra-State marketing in agriculture was always considered a legislative prerogative of States.

What was the legal basis used by the Parliament to pass the Farm Acts:

1. The central government invoked Entry 33 in the Concurrent List (List III).

2. Entry 26 and 27 in List II are listed as “subject to the provisions of Entry 33 of List III”.

Entry 33 in List III: Trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of:

(a) the products of any industry where control of such industry by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest, and imported goods of the same kind as such products;

(b) Foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils;

(c) Cattle fodder, including oilcakes and other concentrates;

(d) Raw cotton, whether ginned or unginned, and cotton seed;

(e) Raw jute.

 

Other ground on which constitutional validity law is check:

1. Violation of the fundamental rights: A.K. Gopalan Case (1950): (Interpreted key Fundamental Rights including Article 19 and 21) also under entitled in article 13 and 22.

2.  Power of parliament under Article 368: dealt only with the procedure for amendment and an amendment to the Constitution is made as part of the normal legislative process. It is, therefore, a "law" for the purpose of article 13 (2).

3. The "basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated and violated even by a constitutional amendment.

4. procedure established by law :judicial view on Article 21 of the Constitution of India so as to imply many more fundamental rights from article 21.

5. Fundamental Rights vs Directive Principles: If a law is made to give effect to DPSPs in Article 39(b) and Article 39(c) and in the process, the law violates Article 14, Article 19 or Article 31, then the law should not be declared as unconstitutional and void merely on this ground.

 

Options before the judiciary:

1. It is true that Article 122 of the Constitution protects the proceedings of the House from judicial review.

2. But this protection is available only when the proceedings are challenged on irregularity of procedure. Violation of the Constitution is not a mere irregularity of procedure.

3. Farm Bills were passed in the Rajya  Sabha in violation of Article 100 (Voting in Houses, power of Houses to act notwithstanding vacancies and quorum) of the Constitution and can be challenged in the Supreme Court on that ground.

4. The Court can strike down the whole laws as the requirement of Article 107 (Bill shall not be deemed to have been passed unless it has been agreed to by both Houses) has not been fulfilled .

 

Conclusion:  

1. Once the Court decides the legality or constitutionality of a law, the political and legislative aspects of the issue will have to be dealt with only by Parliament.

2. It was unwise on the part of the Centre to use Entry 33 in List III to push the Farm Bills. Such adventurism weakens the spirit of federal cooperation that India needs in this hour of crisis. Second, agriculture is exclusively a State subject.

3. Judicial review is needed to uphold the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution, to maintain federal equilibrium and to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. India is a synthesis of both, that is, the American principle of judicial supremacy and the British principle of parliamentary supremacy

 

 

3.) Karnataka’s giant leaps backward?

It has squandered its precious political and administrative heritage:

 

GS-1: Indian Heritage and Culture

GS-2: Issues related to economics of animal-rearing.

GS-3: Determinants and consequences of Ethics in-human actions; dimensions of ethics; ethics - in private and public relationship

 

---

CONTEXT:

1. In rushing through an anti-cow slaughter ordinance without a debate, the Karnataka government undoes more than a century of nuanced debate on the matter.

2 .All aspects of economic,  social and cultural life to make modern social transformation n or looking backward through this legislation.   

 

Historical background of Karnataka “Policies of inclusion”:

1. The Miller Committee Report of 1919 which proposed reservations for Backward Classes (though note, not those then referred to as ‘Panchamas’ and reservat ions were finally accepted only in May 1921).

2. Family planning and rights of women to property in 1934. None of them made an agenda of peddling hate.

 

 Debates on anti-cow slaughter: the policy of Exclusion:

1. Their opinion,” said, “was based mainly on economic grounds.

2.  The custom had been in existence for so long that it was impossible to ban it without the consent of all classes of people.

3. Following the U.P. model in newly promulgated anti-cow slaughter ordinance.

 

What Indian Constitution says about cow slaughter?

1. as per article 48 of Indian Constitution the state shall endeavour to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall in particular take steps for preserving improving the breed, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle

 

Ethical Value On COW slaughter:

1. Cattle slaughter has also been opposed by various Indian religions because of the ethical principle of Ahinsa (non-violence) and the belief in the unity of all life. As per existing meat export policy in India, the export of beef (meat of cow, oxen and calf) is prohibited.

2. The cow is considered sacred by India's Hindu majority, and killing cows is illegal in many states. But the new amendment means Gujarat now has the toughest laws on the issue in the country.

 

Economical impotence of cow:

1. Meat production Industry is a vital part of Indian Agriculture, according to research meat production is estimated at 6.3 million tonnes standing 5th in rank of the world’s meat.

2. India produces around 5.3 million MT of Meat and 75 billion eggs annually. India is the largest producer of buffalo meat and 2nd largest producer of goat meat.

3. The current processing levels in poultry are 6%, while for meat it stands at 21%. Poultry is a highly vertically integrated industry in India and matches.

 

Source: static/startuptalky

 

Why India is the best for Poultry and meat processing Industries?

1. It is the fastest growing economy in the world.

2. It is the largest producer of agriculture commodities.

3. It has the second largest consumer market.

4. It has significant investments in world class ports, logistics & supply chain infrastructure.

5. Proactive government policies.

6. Investor friendly incentives.

7. Highly skilled manpower.

 

Conclusion:

1. According to research, there are about 8000 registered and more than 20,000 unregistered slaughterhouses in the country and most of them are devoid of basic amenities like light, and sanitation.

2. There is no religious protection for the cow or any other cattle under the constitution and the issue of cow slaughter in the DPSP is tied to agriculture and the interests of animal husbandry.

3. Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act deals with undue pain and suffering and not with slaughtering. So it not illegal to slaughter cows.

4.  The new notification contravenes its parent law Sec9(e) states advising government on designing of slaughter houses so that pain in pre slaughtering stage should be avoided and sec11 states slaughtering for food and religious purposes is not cruelty.