The Arunachal Impasse

The imposition of President's Rule in Arunachal Pradesh has triggered fresh debates regarding the power of governors to override decisions taken by the Council of Ministers of a state. Although originally, in the Constitution, it was intended to be used in the rarest of rare cases, President's Rule has been imposed on more than 100 occasions and has become a political tool rather than an emergency provision. The incident has thrown up a number of  questions requiring constitutional scrutiny, including power of governors, imposition of President's Rule and the Anti-Defection Law.

The series of events kicked off after 14 of the state's 47 Congress MLAs rebelled and joined the BJP in a house of 60. The Speaker disqualified the 14 'converts' under the Anti-Defection 10th Schedule of the Constitution. As per the Constitution, A member becomes disqualified a) if he voluntarily gives up his membership of such political party b) if he votes or abstains from voting in such House contrary to any direction issued by his political party without obtaining prior permission of such party and such act has not been condoned by party in 15 days. The Speaker of the House has the power to decide on disqualifications due to defection, which the Arunachal Pradesh Speaker exercised. Thus the Congress still had a majority with 33 MLAs as the strength of the house reduced to 46 after the disqualifications.
The next Assembly session which was to be convened on January 14, 2016 was convened on December 16, 2015 by the Governor, contrary to the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers.  Not only that, Governor J.P. Rajkhowa sent message that the composition of the house will remain unchanged (to nullify disqualification of 14 defectors by the speaker) and set the agenda for discussion to remove the Speaker. In response to this, the Speaker asked home minister to cordon off the assembly building from illegal occupation. The rebel Congress, BJP and Independent MLAs met subsequently on December 16-17 in a community hall under the deputy speaker who had already been disqualified by the Speaker for having defected. The Governor's defence was that he was acting on resolutions sent to him by rebel Congress MLAs and opposition lawmakers for removal of speaker.
Article 174(1) of the Constitution says that the Governor shall from time to time summon the House or each House of the Legislature of the state to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit, but six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in one session and date appointed for its first sitting in the next session. But this does not mean that the Governor can exercise this power at his personal discretion. The Constitution, in Article 163, states that the Governor is to exercise his functions on the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in so far as he is required to exercise his functions in his own discretion. The second part of this article became a contentious issue as the government in Centre used this provision to impose President's Rule on states ruled by opposition parties. The Central Government appointed its loyalists as governors and made them recommend 'President's Rule' on their own discretion without consulting the state government. Article 163(2) of the Constitution says, If any question arises whether any matter falls within the Governor's discretion or not, decision of the governor shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion. This article granted immunity to the Governor regarding actions he had taken in his own discretion. It was not until 1974 that the Supreme Court clarified that except in spheres where the governor is to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers in the exercise of his powers and functions, he is not required to act personally without the aid and advice of the council of ministers or against their advice. Whenever Constitution requires satisfaction of the Governor, satisfaction is not personal satisfaction of Governor but is satisfaction of the Council of Ministers. The Governor has constitutional discretion in matters such as Reservation of a bill for the consideration of the President, recommendation of the imposition of President's Rule in a state and situational discretion in a few matters. Thus, advancing the session of the house without consulting the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers may be seen by the Supreme Court as violation of constitutional law.
A constitution bench of the Supreme Court hearing the matter asked Governor J. P. Rajkhowa, how could he nullify the Speaker's powers to act under Schedule 10. As mentioned before, any question of disqualification arising out of defection is to be decided by the Speaker. Although this power of the Speaker is subject to judicial review (SC ruled in Kihoto Hollohan (1993)), the Governor has no power whatsoever in this regard.
But the most important issue to be addressed is the one pertaining to President's Rule. The very first question that must be asked is on what grounds was the recommendation of President's Rule based. The second question should be whether these reasons were sufficient for the Governor to recommend President's Rule. Before we delve into these questions, let us first examine what the Constitution says about the imposition of President's Rule. Article 356 empowers the President to issue a proclamation, if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of a state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The President can either act on a report of the governor of the state or otherwise too. It is clear from the text that President's Rule is to be recommended only if there is 'breakdown of constitutional machinery' in the state. In several detailed reports the Governor gave the reasons for invoking article 356. Some of the major ones are:

• A bison was sacrificed outside Raj Bhavan.
• The Chief Minister instigated youths to hold protests outside Governor's House using loudspeakers.
• Three dissident legislators accused that chief Minister Nabam Tuki had been 'engaging' with outlawed NSCN-K, a Naga militant group, to bring pressure on them for support.

A Constitution bench is already hearing the case and will soon give its verdict whether the recommendation based on the given reasons and the subsequent action by the Centre was valid or not. The SC has already ruled in SR Bommai case (1994) that a Presidential proclamation imposing President's Rule is subject to judicial review and can be struck down by the court if it is based on irrelevant or extraneous grounds or it was found to be malafide or perverse. In this case, one important point is to be mentioned is that the Governor claimed that the rebel Congress MLAs along with the BJP and Independent MLAs had formed a majority (the government had lost the confidence of the house) which compelled him to take up their resolution. This point can be refuted by the Supreme Court as in SR Bommai it had laid down the proposition that the question of the state government losing the confidence of the legislative assembly should be decided on the 'floor' of the House and until that is done the ministry should not be unseated. Furthermore, based on the report of Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State relations (1988), Supreme Court in SR Bommai enlisted situations where exercise of power under Article 356 could be improper. This contains the provision that exercise of power under 356 can be deemed improper where the governor makes his own assessment of the support of the ministry in the assembly and recommends imposition of President's Rule without allowing the ministry to prove its majority on floor of Assembly.

The matter is sub-judice in the Supreme Court which will determine whether the imposition of President's Rule and the actions of the Governor was in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution. Repeated attempts by various governments to impose President's Rule in Opposition-ruled states is a threat to democracy and the spirit of federalism. The mandate of the people of a state cannot be dismissed by the Central Government in order to achieve political gains and such 'backdoor entry' is to be condemned and remedied at the earliest. We must not forget, India is federal in form, but Union in spirit.

The journey from Bali to Nairobi and death of the Doha Development Round

The recently concluded Nairobi Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation has effectively killed the 'Doha Development Round' and any chance of another 'Development Round' being initiated in the near future looks bleak as the developed countries have silently committed to non-reaffirmation of the Doha Round. India along with the other developing countries expressed thorough 'disappointment' over non-reaffirmation to conclude the 14 year old Doha Round pacts. The objective of the Doha Round was to improve the trading prospects of the developing and poor world (a Development Agenda).

The BALI package (9th Ministerial Conference)

The issue of public stockholding of food has always been a contentious issue. The developed countries demanded that the developing countries reduce agricultural subsidies under the Amber Box type (subsidies to fertilizer, electricity, fuel and assistance through minimum support price). As per the Agreement on Agriculture (under GATT), a maximum of 5% of the 'de-minimis level' can be spent on subsidies under Amber box, while for the developing countries it is capped at 10%. The 'de-minimis' level is the reference which is nothing but the production (of agriculture) of the year 1986-87. The developing countries, especially India feel that this is a discriminatory rule as the production capabilities of developing countries were poor in 1986-87 when compared to the developed countries as well as the fact that inflation was not taken into account. If statistics are to be compared although US is capped at 5% of the de-minimis level, it is much more than India's 10% as production in 86-87 was low. Developing countries like India strongly opposed this rule citing the need to spend more on subsidies for food security and income support for farmers. The Bali ministerial Conference took up the issue and tried to come up with a solution. The three outcomes of the Bali package are:

• LDC(Low Developing Countries) should get duty free, quota free market access to sell goods in all countries.
• Peace Clause
• Trade Facilitation Agreement(TFA)

Peace Clause - The WTO decided that it will not hear any case regarding violation of norms in its dispute-settlement body if any developing country exceeds its cap of 10% on Amber Box subsidies for four years(till 2017). A permanent solution was to be reached by the 11th Conference(2017). Subsidies only for food security/public stockholding were exempted.

The TFA was a major step towards reduction of Non-Tariff Barriers, especially red tape in customs clearance and licensing difficulties. Some of its features are:

1. Online applications and payment of taxes/fees.
2. Single window for document check
3. Faster clearance to perishable goods
4. No middlemen/agent needed
5. Coordination bodies at national and international level to be created to implement TFA.

Experts predicted that implementation of TFA would increase world GDP by $ 1 trillion and 21 million jobs will be created as export/import will rise. Although the deadline for the members to sign the TFA was 31st July 2014, Prime Minister Modi refused to sign it stating that a permanent solution needed to be reached on the food subsidy issue. The government feared that implementing the TFA would allow developed countries to have better market access and if WTO ruled in favour of the developed countries regarding the subsidy issue, the domestic farmers would be adversely affected by the import surges. Consequently, in November 2014, during President Obama's visit to India, a deal was made in which it was decided that the 'Peace Clause' would be extended to infinite time till a solution is reached. Thus, India's food security programs would not be challenged in the WTO and US promised to back India at the WTO.

The NAIROBI Package(10th Ministerial Conference)

India, along with other developing countries especially members of the G33, LDCs, the Africa Group and the ACP, wanted a reaffirmation of the mandate of the Doha round. They wanted the Doha round to continue till all outstanding issues, including on protection of poor farmers and food sovereignty are resolved. But rich countries wanted round to end and sought introduction of new issues that are of their interests including e-commerce, global value chains, competition laws, labour, environment and investments.
The Nairobi package contains series of six ministerial decisions on agriculture, cotton and issues related to LDCs. They are:

• Commitment to eliminate subsidies for farm exports. Developed members have committed to remove exports immediately while developing countries are to do so by 2018. LDCs have been given additional time to cut down export subsidies completely.
• Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security commits members to engage constructively in finding a permanent solution to this issue.
• Decision on Special Safeguard Mechanisms for Developing countries provides them the right to temporarily increase tariff in face of import surges by using an SSM.
• Decision on duty free and quota free access of cotton from LDCs to markets of developed countries, calling for reforms in domestic cotton policies of LDC and asking developed countries to prohibit cotton export subsidies immediately and the developing countries at a later date.
• Decision adopted that will facilitate opportunities for LDC's export of goods to both developed and developing countries.
• Decision on giving preferential  treatment to LDC services and service suppliers.

The meeting was concluded without any commitment by developed countries to check their domestic subsidies. The developed countries refused to budge from their long standing position and instead blamed the developing countries for not taking any action regarding import duties.

COP-21 and the Paris Agreement

The recently concluded COP-21 has been hailed as a historic step towards tackling climate change through reduction in emissions and collective responsibility. The conference witnessed intensive negotiations and it was widely speculated that the agreement would get shelved but it was on the very last day of the conference that all the countries came together and by consensus, agreed to the final global pact. The Paris Agreement of the COP was but a culmination of the efforts of the UNFCCC over a period of almost 25 years to address the challenge of global warming and its impact on the environment.

History

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

The UNFCCC was an international environmental treaty negotiated at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 and entered into force on 21 March 1994. The objective of UNFCCC is to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic influence with the climate system. The Framework sets no binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries and contains no enforcement mechanisms. Instead the framework outlines how specific international treaties are to be negotiated in the future. As of now the UNFCCC has 196 parties. Parties to the convention have been meeting annually from 1995 in the Conference Of Parties (COP) to assess the progress in dealing with climate change.

Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol was proclaimed in 1997 and went into effect in 2005. It was ratified by 141 nations. It bound the 35 industrialized countries to reduce their emissions by year 2012 to 5% less than levels prevalent in 1990. Kyoto protocol set emission targets for developed countries which were binding under international law. It had two commitment periods, 2005-2012 and 2012-2020. The US did not participate in the Kyoto protocol.

Bali Action Plan

The Bali Action Plan was adopted in 2007. As per the Bali Action plan all developed countries agreed to "quantified emission limitations and reduction objectives, while ensuring comparability of efforts among them, taking into account differences in their national circumstances". 42 developed countries, 57 developing countries and the African Group submitted their mitigation targets to UNFCCC.

Copenhagen Negotiations

A number of countries produced the Copenhagen Accord in the year 2009. It states that global warming should be limited to below 2.0 degree C (3.6 degree F) relative to pre-industrial temperatures. 114 countries agreed to the accord. The developed and developing countries submitted their respective mitigation plans as part of the Cancun Agreements.

Durban Platform

In 2011, parties adopted the 'Durban Platform for Enhanced Action' and agreed to develop a protocol, an agreement with legal force under the Convention applicable to all parties. This paved the way for the Paris Agreement which got adopted at COP-21.

Conference of Parties-21 (COP-21)

The COP-21 took place in Paris, France from 30 November to 12 December, 2015. The Conference negotiated the Paris Agreement, a global agreement on climate change, the text of which represented a consensus of the representatives of the 196 participating countries. The agreement will not become legally binding on its members until it is ratified by 55 countries which account for 55% of global emissions all over the world. Each country that ratifies the agreement will have to set a target for reduction in emission but amount will be voluntary. There will be a mechanism to force a country to set the emission target by a specific date but no enforcement if set target is not met. After every five years a party country will choose the most ambitious target that can be met as its target and continue in the direction of mitigation and reduction to achieve that target.
Article 2 defines the objectives of the Paris Agreement which states that the Agreement aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by:

• Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degree C above pre industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5 degree C above pre industrial levels, recognising that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.
• Increasing ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production.
• Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate resilient developments.

Article 2 (2) states that 'This Agreement will be implemented to reflect equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in light of different national circumstances'. This article became a very contentious issue and one of the biggest roadblocks in the way of consensus as several parties felt that the developing countries were being dealt with too leniently and the developed countries had an increased share of responsibilities.
Article 4 explains in detail the responsibilities of the developed and the developing countries and how to proceed in the direction of economy-wide emission reduction. Developing countries have been given more breathing space regarding peaking time and mitigation efforts. Article 4(5) says that 'support shall be provided to developing country parties for implementation of this Article, in accordance with Articles 9, 10 and 11, recognising that enhanced support for developing countries will allow for higher ambition in their actions'. In this context Article 9 states that the developed country parties will provide financial assistance to developing country parties with respect to mitigation and adaptation, while Article 11 emphasises 'capacity-building' by enhancing the capacity and ability of developing countries and least developed countries, to take effective climate change action like mitigation, technology development etc.
The Agreement also establishes a 'global stocktaking process' where the parties will take 'stock of the implementation of this agreement to assess the collective progress towards achieving the purpose of this Agreement'. The first global stocktake will be undertaken in 2023 and will be repeated every 5 years.

How does the Paris Agreement affect India?

India's main concern regarding the Paris Agreement has been the undue limits that could have been placed on India's energy options. India will be requiring a great deal of energy in the coming decades for commercial cooking, fuels, electricity, and industrial and commercial purposes. It is very difficult to ascertain how much energy will be consumed in the coming years and that is one of the reasons why India was apprehensive to commit too much.
Since the beginning of the conference, India had pitched for CBDR (Common But Differentiated Responsibilities). The developed countries have long argued for the dilution of this principle saying that the world has changed since 1990 when convention was negotiated, particularly referring to the rise of China. Statistics show that China, US, the European Union, India and Russia top the list when it comes to carbon dioxide emissions but if per capita emissions are compared India is much much behind than all these countries. India has contributed very little to the problem and has limited capacity to address it, and it did not want to be placed under pressure to limit emissions prematurely. One can say that CBDR was the best option that India could root for. Critics point out that the Paris Agreement is toothless as it does not bind countries to actual emission limits, no mechanisms to enforce actions and therefore will have very little impact. But international actions have influenced policy making at domestic levels and countries cannot afford to ignore the problem for long especially when it could have disastrous effects on the world.

Sources: Wikipedia and unfccc.int.

International Monetary Fund: Structure, Functions and Reforms

Post World War 2, the economy of most of the European countries as well as the U.S. economy was in shambles. In the year 1944, the representatives of 45 governments met at the Bretton Woods Conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to discuss a framework for international economic cooperation and how to rebuild Europe. The conference led to the birth of three international organisations, namely, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade, which was later renamed as the World Trade Organisation in the year 1995.
The IMF website describes the IMF as 'an organization of 188 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world.' But one of the most important functions of the IMF in recent years has been bailing out member countries which are facing a BoP (Balance of Payments) crisis. India itself had to seek the IMF's help in the year 1991 when faced with the BoP crisis of 1991.

Structure of IMF
The IMF is governed and accountable to its 188 members. It consists of the Board of Directors, the Executive Board and the Managing Director. The Board of Directors comprises the finance ministers or central bank governors of all the 188 member countries. They meet annually to elect new executive directors, approving quota increases, SDR allocations, admittance of new members etc. The Executive Directors are responsible for the day to day activities of the IMF.  There are 24 executive directors out of which 5 directors are elected by the five largest quota holders. The Managing Director is the chairman of the Executive Directors and is elected every five years. The MD is eligible for reappointment and is assisted by an internationally recruited staff, operating from the IMF's headquarters in France.

Functions of IMF

• Surveillance of economies on a global, regional and national scale.
• Helping members recover from BoP crisis and in the process, strengthening international trade.
• Technical assistance, training and advisory role regarding BoP maintenance, forex reserve building etc.

Any member country facing a BoP crisis can seek short-term capital from the IMF to recover from the crisis. The IMF negotiates some conditions in exchange for the financial help, requiring the government of the borrowing country to correct macroeconomic imbalances through policy reforms. The member must adhere to these conditions most of which pertain to trade liberalization, privatization and cutting down on subsidies. The capital must be returned along with the interest over a period of time to the IMF. The rate of interest fixed by the IMF is 1.050%.

Special Drawing Rights
These are supplementary foreign exchange reserve assets defined and maintained by the IMF. The value of the SDRs are based on the exchange rate of four currencies (called the SDR basket). As of now the four currencies that form the basket of the SDR are the dollar, the euro, the pound and the yen. The exchange rates of each of the four currencies are multiplied by their respective weights and the value of the SDR is determined. As of now the value of 1 SDR equals 1.4 dollars. The weight is assigned to the currencies as per their importance in International Trade. The currencies and their respected weights are given below:
Yen - 9.4%
Pound - 11.3%
Euro - 37.4%
Dollar - 41.9%

IMF Quota
Every member of the IMF contributes to the reserves of the IMF and the IMF pays interest at the rate of 0.05% to its members. The amount contributed is called the quota and it is linked to the size of the economy, the GDP and the openness to international trade of that nation. Increase in quota, means increase in the SDR contribution which also gives more voting power to that member which it can use to elect executive directors, SDR allocations etc. Presently, the largest contributions are made by:
USA - 17.7%
Japan - 6.5%
Germany - 6.1%
Chinese quota stands at 4.0% while Indian quota is 2.4%.

IMF Reforms
There has been increasing demand from members of the BRICS countries for reforms in the quota allocation and governance of the IMF. The BRICS nations contribute 1/5th of the world GDP and also house 2/5th of the world's population. The quota alloacted to them is very less in contrast to their importance and enormity in the world economy. In the year 2010, the IMF proposed several reforms considering the demand from the BRICS countries.
Pertaining to Quota

• Increasing the quota of emerging economies; India's quota would be increased to 2.7% from 2.4% thus promoting it up 3 places to the 8th position; similarly China's quota would increase from 4% to 6.4%.
• Decreasing the quota of poor nations. This proposal was criticised by the poor countries as the IMF chose to decrease the quota of poor countries rather than the large countries like US and Japan.
• These proposals need 70% votes and without the support of the US, Japan and other large European economies, these reforms cannot be implemented.

Pertaining to Governance

• All executive directors should be elected and there should be no permanent chairs. Current provision allows top 5 quota holders to select 5 out of 24 directors.
• Review composition of executive directors every 8 years.
• These proposals need 85% votes and as mentioned above, US approval is required to put the reforms in place.

All these proposals are pending mainly because of US support. This has prompted the BRICS countries to come up with their own multilateral agencies like the BRICS bank and the AIIB bank as alternatives to the IMF and the World Bank.

Criticism
Many experts are of the opinion that the IMF has failed in predicting several economic breakdowns and crises. Although one of the chief functions is to predict and try to contain these crises, the IMF has failed time and again. Many believe that the Mexico crisis (1995), East Asian Crisis (1997), the sub prime crisis, PIGS crisis, European Sovereign Debt crisis etc could not predicted by the IMF and they could have been avoided by timely intervention. The IMF has also faced criticism for keeping a high SDR rate as well as dragging its feet on reforms in quota and governance.

Reservation and Rise of Mandal Politics

With the 'Mahagatbandhan' RJD-JDU-Congress Alliance sweeping the Bihar elections, there are speculations of the resurgence of the Mandal politics of the 90s. If the NDA sources are to be believed, caste-based politics has made a come back in the Hindi heartland and will upset quite a few political pundits who had written off caste politics after Narendra Modi stormed to power in the Lok Sabha elections of 2014. The 'reservation' debate has assumed national importance once again with the Patel community in Gujarat and the Gujjars of Harayana demanding reservation, while RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat calling for an end to caste-based reservation, the repercussions of which were felt in Bihar.

What the Constitution says
Article 15 of the Constitution says that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
There are three exceptions to this rule:

• State is permitted to make any special provisions for women and children.
• State is permitted to make any special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.
• State is empowered to make any special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, regarding their admission to educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the state, except minority educational institutions. 

The last provision was added by the 93rd Amendment Act of 2005. In order to give effect to this provision, the government enacted the Central Educational Institutions (Reservations in Admission) Act, 2006, providing a quota of 27% for candidates belonging to the OBCs in all central higher educational institutions including the IITs and IIMs.

Article 16 of the Constitution provides for equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of employment or appointment to any office under the state. No citizen can be discriminated against or be ineligible for any employment or office under state on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent or place of birth.
There are exceptions to this general rule:

• Parliament can prescribe residence as a condition for certain employment or appointment in a state or union territory or local authority or other authority.
• State can provide for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class that is not adequately represented in the State services.
• A law can provide that the incumbent of an office related to a religious or denominational institution or a member of its governing body should belong to the particular religion or denomination.

Other articles concerning to the rights and interests of SCs, STs and other weaker sections are Articles 46 and 330 to 342.
It is thus clear that although the Constitution does believe in equality of all citizens, it also asserts that the interests of the backward 'classes' must be given due attention.


Mandal Commission and its aftermath
The Mandal commission, under the chairmanship of B.P. Mandal, was appointed by the Morarji Desai government in 1979 to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes and suggest measures for their advancement, in terms of article 340 of the Constitution.
The commission submitted its report in 1980 and identified 3743 castes which were socially and educationally backward. These castes constituted nearly 52% of the population excluding SCs and STs. The commission recommended for reservation of 27% government jobs for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) so that the total reservation amounts to 50%, as 22.5% of the seats were already reserved for the SCs and STs.
After 10 years, in 1990, the V.P.Singh government declared reservation of 27% government jobs for the OBCs. This move resulted in widespread protests all over the country against giving government jobs on the basis of caste rather than merit of the candidate. The protests closed down roads, highways, transportation services, government services, businesses and schools and escalated enough to close parts of the nation. A number of Bandhs, Hartals, Dharnas were organised with simultaneous reportings of looting, rioting and destruction of public property. It ultimately led to the resignation of V.P. Singh as the Prime Minister of India while his party, the Janata Dal was split up into many different parties like Rashtriya Janata Dal (Bihar), Samajwadi Party (UP), Biju Janata Dal (Orissa), Janata Dal Secular (Karnataka) and the Janata Dal United (Bihar).
Several of these parties assumed caste-based identities and projected themselves as representatives of a particular community of the backward class. These communities already felt threatened at that time because of the ongoing protests against reservation. This paved the way for 'votebank' politics, where every party tried to identify itself with one or more community (mainly from the backward classes). This type of politics reaped dividends for several parties in various states, given the political scenario at that time, and was subsequently referred to as 'Mandal politics'.
In 1991, Narasimha Rao government introduced two changes to those made in 1990:

• preference to poorer sections among OBCs in 27% quota, i.e. adoption of economic criteria in granting reservation.
• reservation of another 10% of jobs for poorer (economically backward) sections of higher castes who were not covered by any schemes of reservation.

In the Mandal Case of 1992 (Indra Sawhney vs Union of India), the Supreme Court rejected additional reservation of 10% for poorer section of higher castes, but upheld constitutional validity of 27% reservation for OBCs with certain conditions.

The present reservation system has faced a lot of criticism from various fronts. But the strongest voice of protest comes from the student community which sees the current system of reservation as regressive and counter-productive. Caste-based reservation has caused many meritorious students to miss out on a chance to bag a seat at the premier institutions while simultaneously these institutions have to do with mediocre students, with many even dropping out before the end of the course.
In cases of government jobs and appointments to other state run institutes, a compromise has to be made by employing people who are not worthy or capable but have to be employed to fill up the quota that has been specified. This creates problems in the effective and smooth functioning of the state machinery. Several others have pointed out the fact that the caste-based reservation system has emerged as a political tool rather than a social backwardness alleviation scheme, which has created deep seated resentment among members of various castes which is against the spirit of nationalism.
The makers of the Constitution were of the opinion that as the country would progress in the field of education and science, reservation would be phased out systematically, but the Parliament has always succeeded in extending that period, which raises the question whether our elected representatives themselves want to do away with reservation or not.

India to be a member of the Nuclear Supply Group?

NSG (Nuclear Supply Group) chairperson, Rafael Grossi has said that the NSG will start consultations on India's membership to the elite nuclear group this month. He also ruled out an 'India-specific' rule which leaves room for Pakistan and Israel (both have not signed the NPT like India) to apply. India has sought membership of the NSG since 2008.

The NSG (Nuclear Supply Group) is a 48-member multinational body concerned with reducing nuclear proliferation by controlling the export and re-transfer of materials that may be applicable to nuclear weapon development and by improving safeguards and protection on existing materials. Ironically, NSG was founded in response to India's nuclear tests in 1974 to stop what it called 'misuse' of nuclear material meant for peaceful purposes. Although, India received a special waiver to conduct nuclear trade with all nuclear exporters in 2008, it has not been accepted as a member of the 'club'.

The NSG works by consensus, which means no votes, but all members have to agree to a proposal. Although the NSG has been admitting new members, it has admitted only those countries which are part of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) and the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty). India has neither signed the NPT or the CTBT. In the past few months President Pranab Mukherjee's visit to Sweden, Prime Minister Modi's visit to Ireland and Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar's visit to Switzerland saw intense discussions over the NSG question. Support of all these countries, including Norway was critical, as they were previously seen as 'non-proliferation' hardliners, insisting that India sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty before it could be admitted. However, in recent years, their position has softened, as they have been calling for India to align its civil nuclear safeguards with NSG guidelines. Both the US and Russia have pledged support for India's inclusion to the NSG. With Prime Minister Modi looking to conclude the nuclear deal between India and Australia and a possible deal with Japan on the cards when Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visits in December, India seeks to garner enough support to lobby for a position in the NSG. China maybe the only country opposing India's inclusion but it has repeatedly denied these claims, while stating that India should sign the NPT so as to be included in the NSG.

Officials are also hopeful of being considered for the MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime), the Australian Group and the Wasenaar Arrangement. The MTCR, formed in 1987, is an informal and voluntary partnership of 34 nations to prevent the proliferation of missile and unmanned aerial vehicle technology capable of carrying a 500kg payload for atleast 300 km. The Australia Group and Wasenaar Arrangement are similar groups for control on export of biological/chemical weapons and conventional arms respectively. This will be an important step towards inclusion of India in the global nuclear order.

Uniform Civil Code in India: The Past and the Future

On the 13th of this month, a Bench of Justices of the Supreme Court, questioned the government about its mandate on framing a Uniform Civil Code so that all religions are regulated by the same yardstick in measures of law. The Bench was hearing a petition, challenging a provision that compels Christian couples to wait for at least two years for divorce, whereas this period for other religions is one year. The BJP which has always supported the need for a uniform civil code in the country is under attack from various sections of the society for delaying the much needed reforms.
The Uniform Civil Code are a set of laws which will replace the personal laws, based on scriptures and customs of each religion (Hindu Code and Muslim Personal Law). This new set of laws will govern each and every citizen of the country irrespective of his religion. As of now, Goa is the only state with a uniform civil code called the 'Goa Family Law' (continuing after its annexation in 1961).

History:
(Pre-Independence)

• The British allowed personal laws to be governed by religious scriptures and customs of various communities. These personal laws involved inheritance, succession, marriage and religious ceremonies. The British took care of laws pertaining to crime, taxation, revenue, contracts, etc.
• The Lex Loci Report of October 1840 emphasised importance and necessity of uniformity in 'codification' of Indian law, relating to crimes, evidences and contract but recommended that personal laws of Hindus and Muslims should be kept outside of codification.
• These religious and customary laws were often discriminatory against women. Several reforms were made to these laws in the 19th century, like the Abolition of Sati and Widow Remarriage Act, with active participation of reformers like Raja Rammohan Roy and Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar.
• Women's organisations demanded a uniform civil code to replace existing personal laws, basing it on the Karachi congress resolution (1931) which guaranteed gender-equality.

(Post-Independence)

• In 1946, there were extensive debates in the Constituent assembly over the place of personal laws in the new Indian legal system. Some were of the opinion that India's personal laws were too divisive and a uniform civil code should be instituted in their place. Others resisted the proposal on the grounds that its imposition would destroy the cultural identity of the minorities.
• After independence, the then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, his supporters and other women members wanted a uniform civil code to be implemented. At the same time, then Law Minister pushed for reforms in the Hindu laws. Nehru saw this as the first step towards Hindu unity and the uniform civil code.
• The bill was met by severe opposition from many quarters including the then president, Rajendra Prasad and Congress party president, Vallabhbhai Patel and members of the Hindu fundamentalist parties. The conservative Hindu politicians, organisations and devotees were unhappy about being singled out as the only community whose laws had to be reformed.
• The main provisions opposed were those concerning monogamy, divorce, coparcenaries and inheritance to daughters. A scaled down version of four Hindu bills were successfully passed in the Parliament in 1955-56. They were Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
• Since Act applied only to Hindus, women from the other communities remained subordinated. 

(Shah Bano Case, 1985)

• Shah Bano was a 73 year old woman who sought maintenance from her husband, Muhammad Ahmad Khan. Khan divorced her after 40 years of marriage by oral Talaaq and denied her maintenance. Unilateral divorce was permitted under Muslim Personal Law.
• Supreme Court ruled in favour of Shah bano under "maintenance of wives, children and parents" provision (section 125) of All India Criminal Code, which applied to all citizens irrespective of their religion. It also recommended that a uniform civil code be set up.
• This became a nation-wide political issue. The All India Muslim Board defended application of their laws. Criminal Code was seen as a threat to Muslim Personal Law, which they considered their cultural identity. For them, the judiciary recommending the uniform civil code was evidence that Hindu values would be imposed on every Indian.

Countries like Turkey and Tunisia have modernised their Islamic personal laws as have also Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Uniform Civil Code is not a magic wand and will not take care of all the problems faced by women overnight. It must emerge from an evolutionary process where participation of the civil society itself is important for the drafting of the code.

Justice R.M. Sahai in Sarla Mudgal, suggested that the Law Commission of India and the commission of minorities could work together to propose reforms, while co-opting bodies like All India Muslim Personal Law Board. There have also been recommendations to adopt a parallel civil and religious system, where in, certain matters like maintenance, inheritance, etc. civil law would prevail and be mandatory. These parallel systems exist in London, New York and Toronto. Such a parallel system would encourage an idea of uniformity that would respect autonomous laws for religious communities and address provisions inconsistent with the constitution.

In a country as diverse as India, it becomes cumbersome for the judiciary to judge cases when different laws apply to different communities. The Uniform Civil Code will be an important step towards national integration and national unity. Article 44 of the Constitution says that 'the state shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India'. Although this article is not justiciable, the state has an obligation towards civil society to set up the uniform civil code. It is important in the sense, that it will promote gender equality and do away with archaic personal laws of Muslims which allow unilateral divorce and polygamy.

(sources: Indian Express and Wikipedia)