💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • [pib] India’s rebuttal to Freedom House Report

    The Freedom House report titled “Democracy under Siege” in which it has been claimed that India’s status as a free country has declined to “partly free”, is misleading, incorrect, and misplaced.

    The US who claims to be the champion of Human Rights has turned another sermon to India through its Freedom House Report. This report presents an inherently flawed and biased analysis of Indian democracy.

    Rebuttal to specific points

    (1) Discriminatory policies against Minorities

    • The GoI treats all its citizens with equality as enshrined under the Constitution of the country and all laws are applied without discrimination.
    • Due process of law is followed in matters relating to law and order, irrespective of the identity of the alleged instigator.
    • With specific reference to the North East Delhi riots in February 2020, the law enforcement machinery acted swiftly in an impartial and fair manner.
    • Proportionate and appropriate actions were taken to control the situation.
    • Necessary legal and preventive actions were taken by the law enforcement machinery on all complaints/calls received, as per law and procedures.

    (2) Use of Sedition Law

    • “Public Order’ and ‘Police’ are State subjects under India’s federal structure of governance.
    • The responsibility of maintaining law and order, including investigation, registration, and prosecution of crimes, protection of life and property, etc., rests primarily with the concerned State governments.
    • Therefore, measures as deemed fit are taken by law enforcement authorities to preserve public order.

    (3) Government response to COVID-19 through Lockdown

    • Between March 16 to 23, most State governments/UT resorted to partial or full Lockdown in their respective State/ UT based on their assessment of the COVID-19 situation.
    • Any mass movement of people would have spread the disease rapidly throughout the country.
    • The government was fully conscious that during the period of an inevitable Lockdown, people should not face undue distress.
    • India has, on a per capita basis, registered one of the lowest rates of active COVID-19 cases and COVID-19 related deaths globally.

    (4) Government response on human rights organizations

    • The Indian Constitution provides for adequate safeguards under various statutes, including the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 for ensuring the protection of human rights.
    • This Act provides for the constitution of an NHRC and SHRC in the States for better protection of human rights and for matters connected to this subject.

    (5) Intimidation of academics and journalists and crackdown on expressions of dissent by media

    • The Indian Constitution provides for freedom of expression under Article 19. Discussion, debate, and dissent are a part of Indian democracy.
    • The GoI attaches the highest importance to the safety and security of all residents of the country, including journalists.
    • It has issued a special advisory to States and UTs on the safety of journalists requesting them to strictly enforce the law to ensure the safety and security of media persons.

    (6) Internet shutdowns

    • Temporary suspension of the telecom services, including the internet, is governed under the provisions of the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017.
    • Hence, the temporary suspension of telecom/internet services is resorted to with the over-arching objective of maintaining law and order under strict safeguards.

    (7) FCRA amendment leading to freezing of Amnesty International’s assets has led to declining in ranking

    • Amnesty International had received permission under the FCRA Act only once and that too 20 years ago.
    • Since then Amnesty International, despite its repeated applications, has been denied FCRA approval by successive governments since as per law it is not eligible to get such approval.
    • However, in order to circumvent the FCRA regulations, Amnesty U.K. remitted large amounts of money to four entities registered in India, by misclassifying the remittance as FDI.
    • A significant amount of foreign money was also remitted to Amnesty India without MHA’s approval under FCRA.
    • This malafide rerouting of money was in contravention of extant legal provisions.
    • Owing to these illegal practices of Amnesty, the previous government had also rejected the repeated applications of Amnesty to receive funds from overseas.

  • The perils of domicile-based preferential policies

    The Haryana government is considering a Bill that provides for 75 per cent reservation to the residents of the state. This article discusses the challenge such policies poses.

    Domicile-based preferential policies on rise

    • The Haryana government’s State Employment of Local Candidates Bill 2020 reserves 75 per cent of new jobs in private establishments for Haryana residents.
    • Andhra Pradesh has mandated 75 per cent reservation for locals.
    • Karnataka is considering reserving all blue-collar jobs for locals.
    • Madhya Pradesh has announced that public employment in the state be reserved for state residents.

    Constitutionality of such policies

    • The Constitution prohibits discrimination based on place of birth.
    • The right to move freely in the country and reside and settle in any part of it, the right to carry out any trade or profession, are all established rights.
    • Article 16(3) does, in principle, enable Parliament [ not state legislature] to provide for domicile-based preferential treatment in public employment.

    Judicial scrutiny

    • The constitutionality of domicile-based employment preferences (unlike preferences in education) has never been frontally tested.
    • But almost all the existing case law that impinges on the matter clearly indicates such laws are unconstitutional.
    • In Pradeep Jain vs Union of India, the court had indicated this direction; in Kailash Chandra Sharma vs State of Rajasthan, the court had warned against parochialism.
    • The Andhra Pradesh Bill is sub judice in the high court.

    Issues with the policies

    • The Supreme Court will hopefully rule on the constitutionality of the  Haryana government’s Bill.
    • But the Bill has ramifications beyond constitutionality.
    • First, because this kind of constitutional cynicism is now not an exception but has become a contagion.
    • Second, even if the Bill is struck down, such a high wire act is meant to fuel the flames of localism.
    • Third, the Bill now exposes the bad faith of political parties on private sector reservation more generally.
    • Fourth, these bills will open up a new form of competitive ethnic politics.
    • It is odd that a state like Haryana which has benefitted from being part of a cosmopolitan zone like NCR should unilaterally impose reservations.
    • Fifth, there is patent class discrimination: If you are rich, privileged or highly skilled, there are no entry barriers in accessing any labour market.
    • But we shall put entry barriers on lower skilled migrants; our own internal version of an H-1B visa.
    • The greatest damage the Bill does is to increase the discretionary power of the state, almost taking us back to a license permit raj, where companies will have to bargain, or worse, bribe the state for exemptions.
    • This is the antithesis of regulatory reform.

    Consider the question “There have been growing tendencies among the states to pursue domicile-based preferential policies. What are the issues related to such policies?”

    Conclusion

    But the fact that states feel the need to enact these bills is an indictment of the economy as a whole: They suggest a pessimism about both education and job creation. So we have returned to a world of zero sum thinking.

  • Haryana’s new Job Quota Rule

    The Haryana government has notified a new law that requires 75% of private-sector jobs in the state, up to a specified salary slab, reserved for a local candidate.

    Haryana’s move has renewed the debate on whether the government force should private companies to adopt its reservation policy in jobs. While constitutional guarantees for reservation have been limited to public employment, attempts to extend it to private sector are not new either.

    Haryana Quota Rule

    • The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Bill, 2020 requires private companies to set aside for domiciles 75% of jobs up to a monthly salary of Rs 50,000 or as may be notified by the government.
    • The law is applicable to all companies, societies, trusts, limited liability partnership firms, partnership firms and any person employing 10 or more persons.

    Other states with such laws

    • In July 2019, the Andhra Pradesh government had passed a similar law, which was challenged in court.
    • The Andhra Pradesh High Court had made a prima facie observation that the move might be unconstitutional, but the challenge is yet to be heard on merits.

    What are the legal issues in such laws?

    Two big legal questions come up.

    (1) Question of domicile reservation

    • While domicile quotas in education are fairly common, courts have been reluctant in expanding this to public employment.
    • Last year, the MP government decided to reserve all government jobs for “children of the state”, raising questions relating to the fundamental right to equality of citizens.

    (2) Right to Equality

    • The second question, which is more contentious, is the issue of forcing the private sector to comply with reservations in employment.
    • For mandating reservation in public employment, the state draws its power from Article 16(4) of the Constitution.
    • It says that the right to equality in public employment does not prevent the state from “making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
    • The Constitution has no manifest provision for private employment from which the state draws the power to make laws mandating reservation.

    Rationale in bringing such laws

    Providing reservation in public employment is one of the many ways through which the state endeavours to ensure equal opportunity for all citizens.

    • With public sector jobs constituting only a minuscule proportion of all jobs, legislators have talked about extending the legal protections to the private sector.
    • They aim to really achieve the constitutional mandate of equality for all citizens.
    • One argument often made in favour of reservation for private jobs is that private industries use public infrastructure in many ways.
    • A similar argument was made in requiring private schools to comply with the Right to Education Act, which the Supreme Court also upheld.

    Global precedences

    • Affirmative action is adopted in many countries in the context of race and gender.
    • In the US, there is no statutory requirement for employers to have quotas.
    • Courts can order monetary damages and injunctive relief, including “such affirmative action as may be appropriate”, for victims of discrimination.
    • The Employment Equity Act in Canada also protects minority groups, especially aboriginals from discrimination in federally regulated industries, even in the private sector.

    Talk to senior mentors from Civilsdaily: Fill Samanvaya form for IAS 2021 and IAS 2022. We’ll call you within 24 hours for a detailed in-depth discussion.

    Civilsdaily Samanvaya 1-On-1 Mentorship Form

    Field will not be visible to web visitor

    Yes I want Mentorship

  • India’s migrant workers need better policies

    The article analyses the draft policy document for migrant labourers prepared by the NITI Aayog.

    Draft policy by NITI Aayog

    • The Niti Aayog, on the request of the Ministry of Labour and Employment, has prepared an umbrella policy document for migrant labourers, including informal sector workers.
    • The draft policy makes significant strides in providing a perspective on recognising the magnitude and role of migrant workers, their problems and vulnerabilities, and the role and responsibilities of various stakeholders in addressing these.
    •  It states that a sound policy must be viewed from a “human rights, property rights, economic, social development, and foreign policy lens”.
    • It reiterates that policy should lead to the fulfilment of ILO commitments and the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 8.8 on the protection of labour rights and providing a safe and secure working environment for all workers, particularly migrants.

    Portability of social protection to address vulnerabilities

    • The policy describes many sources of vulnerabilities of migrant labourers, ranging from their invisibility and political and social exclusion to informal work arrangements, exploitation and denial of labour rights, lack of collective voice, exclusion from social protection arrangements, formal skills, health, education, and housing.
    • Following from this, it identifies portability of social protection, voting rights, right to the city (the collective ownership and participation of citizens in cities they have helped build) and health, education and housing facilities as key issues to be dealt with.
    • It also reflects on the need for pro-poor development and provision of livelihoods in the source areas.

    Governance structure

    • The draft policy proposes a governance structure with the Ministry of Labour as the nodal ministry and a dedicated unit under it which will act as a focal point for inter-ministerial and Centre-state coordination.
    • It also proposes mechanisms for coordinating the effort on inter-state migration, especially on principal migration corridors.
    • The policy document creates a framework under which migrant workers and their families can access entitlements and possibly work in a safer and better environment.

    Issues need to be addressed

    1) Failure to address cause of migration of labour

    • The National Commission for Rural Labour argued way back in 1991 that unequal development was the main cause of labour migration.
    • In the last three decades, disparities in development and inequalities have grown ceaselessly, calling for deep correctives.
    • Without such correction, migration and the adverse inclusion of migrants in labour markets is bound to grow unchecked.
    • The report falls short of acknowledging this.

    2) Exclusion of migrants urban local governments

    • While the report correctly pinpoints the exclusion of migrants by urban local governments in the provision of basic entitlements, it fails to acknowledge the root cause of the lopsided urban development strategy.
    • The urban strategy has catered to national and global capital and the urban middle classes, marginalising the poor, particularly the migrants.

    3) Denial of social security

    • The report also makes a false dichotomy between approaches which rely on cash transfers and special dispensations and a second approach which enhances the agency and capability of migrants and removes constraints on these.
    • The denial of the first approach has led the report to brush aside the migrants’ and informal workers’ right to social security.
    • Social security is acknowledged as a universal human right in international covenants to which India is a signatory and is given due place in the Constitution.
    • The National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) showed in 2006 that providing a minimum level of universal social security was financially and administratively feasible.
    • The Commission also recommended a universal registration system and issuance of smart social security cards, but its recommendations have unfortunately remained a dead letter.

    4) Approach towards labour rights and labour policy

    • By putting grievance and legal redressal above regulation and enforcement on which it remains silent, the report puts the cart before the horse.
    • Surprisingly, the report does not take stock of the new labour codes, mentioning only the defunct laws that were subsumed by them.
    • The Codes accentuate the very problems — informality, precarity, the role of contractors and the lack of organisation — which the report itself describes.
    • The Codes, in promoting ease of business, have tilted the balance firmly in favour of capital.

    Conclusion

    In essence, the draft policy framework identifies the problems but fails to address the policy distortions which lie at their root. Hopefully, however, the draft will be opened up for further discussions and feedback to enrich and complete what is already a significant beginning.

  • Freedom in the World Report, 2021

    Freedom in the World 2020: A Leaderless Struggle for Democracy

    US-based human rights watchdog Freedom House has accused the present government of driving India toward authoritarianism with a lockdown scapegoating of minorities and a crackdown on critics, and downgraded India’s status from ‘Free’ to ‘Partly Free’, in its annual report.

    Freedom in the World Report

    • It is Freedom House’s flagship annual report, assessing the condition of political rights and civil liberties around the world.
    • It is composed of numerical ratings and supporting descriptive texts for 195 countries and 15 territories.
    • The report has been published since 1973, allowing Freedom House to track global trends in freedom over more than 40 years.
    • Freedom House, which is largely funded through U.S. government grants, has been tracking the course of democracy since 1941.

    What did the report say?

    Political and civil rights

    • India’s freedom score, calculated using indicators of political rights and civil liberties, dropped four points to 67 this year, pulling the country down into the ‘Partly Free’ category.
    • India appears to have abandoned its potential to serve as a global democratic leader, elevating narrow nationalist interests at the expense of its founding values of inclusion and equal rights for all.

    Reference to Kashmir

    • In a year when social media censorship has been hotly seated, while the government shut down Internet connectivity in Kashmir as well as on Delhi’s borders, India’s Internet freedom score dropped to just 51.

    Crackdown on protesters

    • Last year, the government intensified its crackdown on protesters opposed to a discriminatory citizenship law and arrested dozens of journalists who aired criticism of the official pandemic response.

    Judicial Independence

    • It noted that judicial independence had also come under strain.
    • It pointed to the case of a Delhi HC judge who was transferred immediately after reprimanding the police for taking no action during riots in the capital that leftover 50 people dead.

    Religious freedom

    • Minorities were disproportionately blamed for the spread of the virus and faced attacks by vigilante mobs.
    • Uttar Pradesh’s law prohibiting forced religious conversion through interfaith marriage was also listed as a concern.

    Rising Authoritarianism

    • Rather than serving as a champion of democratic practice and a counterweight to authoritarian influence from countries such as China, the government is tragically driving India itself toward authoritarianism, the report stated.

  • Ceasefire between India and Pakistan.

     

    Why it is different from the past

    • The February ceasefire has triggered widespread speculation about its durability, significance and implication for bilateral relations in general.
    • This agreement is different from the routine ceasefire assurances that the two sides made till January 2021.
    • What makes the February 2021 ceasefire different is its two distinct features:
    • First, this was a joint statement by the two DGsMO.
    • Second, unlike the previous declarations, the recent agreement mentions a specific date, i.e., the night of February 24-25, to begin the ceasefire.
    • The agreement is also path-breaking from a conflict management point of view.
    • The ceasefire is also significant because this helps India to defuse an ugly two-front situation and a feeling of being boxed in by an inimical Pakistan and an aggressive China.

    Historical background of ceasefires with Pakistan

    • The Karachi agreement of 1949, which ended the first war between newly formed India and Pakistan, was the first ceasefire agreement between the two countries that created the India Pakistan boundary in Kashmir called the Ceasefire Line or CFL.
    • The United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) was mandated to monitor the ceasefire along the CFL.
    • Following the India-Pakistan war of 1971, the Suchetgarh Agreement of 1972 delineated the ‘line of control’ in Jammu and Kashmir thereby renaming the CFL as the LoC.
    • The 2003 agreement between the DGsMO, communicated through a telephone call between them, was a reiteration of the December 1971 war termination ceasefire.

    Rules and norms required

    • A ceasefire requires a clearly articulated and mutually-agreed-upon set of rules and norms for effective observance along with an intent to observe them. 
    • The February ceasefire is an expression of such an intent, but without the rules and norms to enforce it.
    • The Simla Agreement or the Suchetgarh Agreement do not have those rules either.
    • The Karachi Agreement, on the other hand, has clearly laid down provisions on how to manage the CFL which, of course, was overtaken by the LoC.
    • Therefore, armed forces deployed on either side of the LoC in Kashmir often have to resort to Karachi Agreement to observe the ceasefire.
    • Now that the two DGsMO have declared a joint ceasefire, the next logical step is to arrive at a set of rules to govern that ceasefire.
    • An unwritten ceasefire, experiences from conflict zones around the world show, tend to break down easily and trigger tensions in other domains.

    Role of back channels

    • What is also significant to note about the ceasefire agreement between the two DGsMO is that this was preceded by weeks.
    • Interestingly, the 2003 ceasefire was also preceded by discreet parleys between the heads of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan and the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) of India.
    • The 2003 CFA led to a sustained period of back channel talks on Kashmir which, by mid 2007, had almost finalised a deal to resolve the Kashmir conflict.
    • Ane key reason why the CFA held at least till 2008 was because there were parallel talks, along with holding fire on the LoC, on other outstanding bilateral issues, principally Kashmir.

    Conclusion

    While whether the 2021 CFA would prompt talks in other areas is unclear as of now, the possibility of piecemeal agreements to create durable stability bilaterally unless followed by progress in other domains remains to be seen.

  • Recalibrating relations with EU

    With India about to lose preferential access to the EU, there is a need to deepen the trade and investment ties with the region. The article deals with this issue.

    Export potential to the EU

    • India has an untapped export potential of $39.9 billion in the EU and Western Europe.
    • India benefits from tariff preferences under the EU’s Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) for several of these products.
    • In fact, India is among the major beneficiaries of the EU’s GSP, accounting for nearly 37% of India’s merchandise exports.

    India losing EU-GSP benefits: Product graduadion

    • Product graduation applies when average imports of a product from a beneficiary country exceed 17.5% of EU-GSP imports of the same product from all beneficiary countries over three years.
    • There are several products where India has export potential in the EU, but these have “graduated” or are at the brink of “graduation” under EU GSP.
    • India’s exports of products such as textiles, inorganic and organic chemicals, gems and jewellery, iron, steel and their articles, base metals and automotives are already out of the ambit of EU-GSP benefits.
    •  In apparel, India’s exports to the EU were valued at $7 billion in 2019, of which nearly 94% was under EU-GSP, indicative of the impact that the graduation may have on apparel exports.
    • Bangladesh’s apparel exports would continue to receive tariff benefits in the EU under Everything but Arms Initiative.
    • Another competitor, Vietnam, concluded a free trade agreement (FTA) with the EU in 2019.

    Need to deepen trade and investment ties

    • In light of the declining preferential access and the plausible erosion of competitiveness in the EU market, there is clearly a need to deepen trade and investment ties with the region.
    • Broad-based Trade and Investment Agreement, which commenced in 2007, is yet to materialise due to lack of concurrence in areas like automotives and dairy and marine products.
    • Therefore, a thorough assessment of the benefits from FTA for domestic producers is warranted, with due consideration to the impact on sensitive sectors, and possibility of inclusion of safeguards such as sunset clause on concessions for some items.
    • Further, there should also be provisions for aspects such as investment and non-tariff measures (NTMs).
    • India also needs to negotiate on investment-related aspects with the EU to foster stronger value chains, especially in technology-intensive sectors in which the EU has a comparative advantage.
    • As far as NTMs are concerned, India faces as many as 414 NTMs in the EU, in a wide array of sectors. FTAs have some institutional arrangements for NTMs.

    Consider the question “Forging stronger ties with the EU could pave way for the greater cooperation and stronger trade ties. Elucidate.” 

    Conclusion

    Post-Brexit EU finds itself in the midst of a growing need for recalibrating ties with its partner countries. Forging stronger ties with the region through a mutually beneficial agreement could help strengthen Indian manufacturing and revitalise the flailing exports.

  • India, Japan back in another Sri Lanka port project

    Sri Lanka has confirmed that it will develop the West Container Terminal (WCT) at the Colombo Port along with India and Japan.

    Q.The threat of Chinese presence in South Asia can be tackled more effectively if India changes course in its dealings with its neighbours and becomes more sensitive to their concerns. Critically analyse.

     Why in news?

    • The decision comes a month after the Rajapaksa government ejected the two partners from a 2019 tripartite agreement to jointly develop the East Container Terminal (ECT), citing resistance to “foreign involvement”.
    • Neither India nor Japan has officially commented on the offer, or on the said private investment from the countries.

    An alternative to ECT

    • SL has offered India and Japan the WCT as an alternative, allowing higher stakes.
    • In the ECT project agreed upon earlier, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) was to hold a majority 51%, but in the WCT proposal, India and Japan will be accorded an 85% stake.
    • The nearby Colombo International Container Terminal (CICT), where China Merchants Port Holdings Company Limited holds 85%.
    • This makes it a strategically desirable spot for India, whose concerns over China’s presence in Sri Lanka are well known.

    Issues with a new project

    • The WCT is adjacent to the China-run CICT and just a couple of kilometres away from the China-backed Port City being built on reclaimed land.
    • The West Container Terminal, however, has to be built from scratch, requiring a much higher investment.
    • The return on investment has not been envisaged yet.

    Why is Colombo so generous this time?

    • Colombo’s alternative offer also comes at a time when Sri Lanka is seeking support at the ongoing UN Human Right Council session, where a resolution on the country’s rights record will soon be put to vote.

  • Live Telecast of Parliament Proceedings

    Lok Sabha Television (LSTV) and Rajya Sabha Television (RSTV) have been merged into a single ‘Sansad TV’.

    Live telecast of parliament

    • Lok Sabha TV is the older of the two — it started operating on July 24, 2006.
    • The channel’s vision, according to its website, is to reach the “live proceedings of the Parliament House…to every household”.
    • This is because awareness of citizens towards the working of Member of Parliament in the Parliament House helps in bringing awareness about various efforts of various stakeholders in the governance process.
    • The information empowers the citizens to utilise their democratic rights diligently and be part of the democratic ecosystem.

    Do you know?

    The Union Budget allocates funds for the running of channels.

    Inception of the idea

    • LSTV was the brainchild of former Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee.
    • People familiar with the circumstances in which the channel was set up, said that then Rajya Sabha Chairman Bhairon Singh Shekhawat was not really convinced with Chatterjee’s proposal.
    • It was during his time of Shekhawat’s successor, Hamid Ansari, that the separate channel for the Upper House materialized.

    Before the channels

    • Before LSTV started functioning as a channel, select parliamentary proceedings had been televised since December 20, 198.
    • On April 18, 1994, the entire proceedings of Lok Sabha started to be filmed.
    • And in August that year, a Low Power Transmitter (LPT) was set up and made operational in Parliament House to telecast the proceedings live.
    • From December 1994, Question Hour in both Houses was telecast live on alternate weeks on Doordarshan.
    • It was arranged in such a manner that during the telecast of the Question Hour of one House by Doordarshan, the Question Hour of the other House was broadcast by All India Radio.
    • When the DD News channel was launched, Question Hour in both Houses started getting telecast simultaneously on DD channels.

    Separate channels

    • But it was only after a decade, in December 2004, that a separate dedicated satellite channel was set up for the live telecast of the proceedings of both Houses.
    • In 2006, LSTV started airing the proceedings of the Lower House live.
    • RSTV was launched in 2011. Apart from telecasting live the proceedings in Rajya Sabha, it also brings analyses of parliamentary affairs and provides a platform for knowledge-based programmes.

  • [pib] Better Than Cash Alliance

    The Government of India, FICCI, and the Better Than Cash Alliance has come under the partnership to achieve the industry level commitment of responsible digitization of merchants.

    Make a note here that it is a BTCA is a global partnership with diverse funding, a UN office as its secretariat and Indian being its member.

    Better Than Cash Alliance

    • The Better Than Cash Alliance is a global partnership of 75 governments, companies, and international organizations that accelerates the transition from cash to digital payments in order to reduce poverty and drive inclusive growth.
    • It was created in September 2012 by the United Nations Capital Development Fund (Secretariat), the US Agency for International Development, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Visa Inc. among others.
    • Based at the UN, the Alliance has over 50 members, works closely with other global organizations, and is an implementing partner for the G20 Global Partnership for Financial Inclusion.
    • India became a member of the alliance in 2015 to digitize payments to achieve financial inclusion and to share success stories from PM Jan Dhan Yojana, the world’s largest financial inclusion program.

    Working method

    The Better Than Cash Alliance partners with governments, companies, and international organizations that are the key drivers behind the transition to make digital payments widely available by:

    1. Advocating for the transition from cash to digital payments in a way that advances financial inclusion and promotes responsible digital finance.
    2. Conducting research and sharing the experiences of our members to inform strategies for making the transition.
    3. Catalyzing the development of inclusive digital payments ecosystems in member countries to reduce costs, increase transparency, advance financial inclusion– particularly for women– and drive inclusive growth.