Inspiring and controversial, this article explains the history of slogans that have endured in India’s politics.
(1) ‘Jai Hind’ by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose popularised ‘Jai Hind’ as a salutation for soldiers of his Indian National Army (INA), which fought alongside Netaji’s ally Japan in the Second World War.
But according to some accounts, Netaji did not actually coin the slogan.
A book says the term was coined by Zain-ul Abideen Hasan, the son of a collector from Hyderabad, who had gone to Germany to study.
There, he met Bose and eventually left his studies to join the INA.
Khan was tasked by Bose to look for a military greeting or salutation for the INA’s soldiers, a slogan which was not caste or community-specific, given the all-India basis of the INA.
The idea for ‘Jai Hind’ came to Hasan when he was at the Konigsbruck camp in Germany.
(2) ‘Tum mujhe khoon do, main tumhe aazadi doonga’ by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose
This slogan had origins in a speech Netaji made in Myanmar, then called Burma, on July 4, 1944.
Underlining his core philosophy of violence being necessary to achieve independence, he said, “Friends! My comrades in the War of Liberation! Today I demand of you one thing, above all.
He ended the speech saying “Tum mujhe khoon do, main tumhe aazadi doonga” (Give me blood and I promise you freedom).
(3) ‘Vande Mataram’ by Bankim Chandra Chatterji
The term refers to a sense of respect expressed to the motherland.
In 1870, Bengali novelist Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay wrote a song which would go on to assume a national stature, but would also be seen as communally divisive by some.
Written in Bengali, the song titled ‘Vande Mataram’ was not introduced into the public sphere until the publishing of the novel Anandamath in 1882, of which the song is a part.
Vande Mataram soon became the forefront of sentiments expressed during the freedom movement.
The novel, set in the early 1770s came against the backdrop of the Fakir-Sannyasi Rebellion against the British in Bengal.
(4) ‘Inquilab Zindabad’ by Maulana Hasrat Mohani
‘Inquilab Zindabad’ (Long live the revolution) was first used by Maulana Hasrat Mohani in 1921.
Hasrat was his pen name (takhallus) as a revolutionary Urdu poet, which also became his identity as a political leader.
Hasrat Mohani was a labour leader, scholar, poet and also one of the founders of the Communist Party of India in 1925.
Along with Swami Kumaranand — also involved in the Indian Communist movement — Mohani first raised the demand for complete independence or ‘Poorna Swaraj’, at the Ahmedabad session of the Congress in 1921.
His stress on Inquilab was inspired by his urge to fight against social and economic inequality, along with colonialism.
Before Mohani coined this slogan, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia made the idea of revolution symbolic of the struggle for oppressed nationalities globally.
It was from the mid-1920s that this slogan became a war cry of Bhagat Singh and his Naujawan Bharat Sabha, as well as his Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA).
(5) ‘Sarfaroshi ki Tamanna’ by Bismil Azimabadi
This is the first line of a poem written by Bismil Azimabadi (and NOT Ramprasad Bismil), a freedom fighter and poet from Bihar, after the Jallianwalah Bagh Massacre of 1921 in Amritsar, Punjab.
The lines were popularised by Ram Prasad Bismil, another revolutionary.
He was a part of the Kakori train robbery, a successful and ambitious operation in which a train filled with British goods and money was robbed for Indian fighters to purchase arms.
(6) ‘Do or Die’ by Gandhi Ji
In 1942, the Second World War commencing and the failure of Stafford Cripps Missions – which only promised India a ‘dominion status’ where it would still have to bear allegiance to the King of England .
This made Gandhi Ji realise that the movement for freedom needed to be intensified.
On August 8, 1942, the All-India Congress Committee met in Gowalia Tank Maidan (August Kranti Maidan) in Bombay.
Gandhi addressed thousands after the meeting to spell out the way forward.
(7) ‘Quit India’ by Yusuf Meherally
While Gandhi gave the clarion call of ‘Quit India’, the slogan was coined by Yusuf Meherally, a socialist and trade unionist who also served as Mayor of Mumbai.
A few years ago, in 1928, Meherally had also coined the slogan “Simon Go Back” to protest the Simon Commission – that although was meant to work on Indian constitutional reform, but lacked any Indians.
Meherally was a Congress Socialist Party member who was actively involved in anti-government protests.
The Union Cabinet has approved the signing of an Audio Visual Co-production Treaty between India and Australia, which is aimed at facilitating joint production of films between the two countries.
India – Australia Relations
Both the countries share the ethos and values of pluralism, liberal democracy, steadfast commitment to rule of law, Commonwealth traditions, international peace, development and security.
The establishment of diplomatic relations between them dates back to the Pre-independence era. It started with the opening of the Consulate General of India as a Trade Office in Sydney in 1941.
Since then the ties have blossomed and currently, they enjoy a multi-faceted cooperation spanning areas of political interactions, economic collaboration, scientific research, strategic convergence, friendly people-to-people ties especially diaspora links and sporting ties of hockey and cricket.
Areas of cooperation
1.Political Dimension
Both the countries are members of G-20, ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), IORA (Indian Ocean Rim Association), Asia Pacific Partnership on Climate and Clean Development, East Asia Summit and the Commonwealth. Australia has been extremely supportive of India’s quest for membership of the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation).
Australia whole-heartedly welcomed India s joining of the MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime).
2. Economic Dimension
In recent years, the India-Australia economic engagement has magnified significantly. Australia has been very appreciative of economic reforms undertaken by India and its improving ease of doing business rankings because of the reforms was undertaken by the current government. India has welcomed Australia to participate in its Make in India, Smart Cities, AMRUT (Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation), Clean Ganga Project etc. initiatives.
India and Australia are partners in the trilateral Supply Chain Resilience Initiative (SCRI) arrangement along with Japan which seeks to enhance the resilience of supply chains in the Indo-Pacific Region.
Recently, India signed a historic trade agreement with Australia, the India-Australia Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement (Ind- Aus ECTA).
It is the first Free Trade Agreement (FTA) that India has signed with a major developed country in over a decade. Credit: Business Standard
The current government has invited Australia s private sector participation in Indian economy. It says red tape in India has been replaced by red carpet and has welcomed private investors.
3.Trade and Economic
The establishment of India-Australia Joint Ministerial Commission (JMC) in 1989 encouraged dialogue at a government and business level on multiple issues of trade and investment.
India-Australia CEO Forum is a significant mechanism through which business leaders from both nations engage in mutually fruitful dialogue to enhance bilateral trade and investment relationship. The Forum consists of heads of Indian and Australian business from multiple sectors like energy and resources, agri-business, financial sector, telecommunications, IT, education and pharmaceuticals. The last meeting of the Forum was held in New Delhi on 29th August 2017.
The city of Canberra, Australia hosted the seventh India-Australia Economic Policy Dialogue during 16-18 July 2017.
India’s main exports to Australia are Refined Petroleum, medicaments, while our major imports are Coal, copper ores & concentrates, Gold, and education related services.
India s major imports from Australia are coal, non-monetary gold, copper, wool, fertilizers, wheat, vegetables and education-related services.
India and Australia have been each other’s important trading partners.
Australia is the 17th largest trading partner of India and India is Australia’s 9th largest trading partner.
India-Australia bilateral trade for both merchandise and services is valued at USD 27.5 billion in 2021.
India’s merchandise exports to Australia grew 135% between 2019 and 2021. India’s exports consist primarily of a broad-based basket largely of finished products and were USD 6.9 billion in 2021.
India’s merchandise imports from Australia were USD 15.1 billion in 2021, consisting largely of raw materials, minerals and intermediate goods.
4.Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
A Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement between the two countries was signed in September 2014 during the visit of the Australian Prime Minister to India. The agreement came into force from 13 November 2015.
The Australian Parliament passed the “Civil Nuclear Transfer to India Bill 2016” on 01 December, 2016 which ensures that Uranium mining companies in Australia may fulfil contracts to supply Australian uranium to India for civil use with confidence that exports would not be hindered by domestic legal action challenging the consistency of the safeguards applied by the IAEA in India and Australia’s international non-proliferation obligations.
It also ensures that any future bilateral trade in other nuclear-related material or items for civil use will also be protected.
5.Defence Cooperation
The Mutual Logistics Support Agreement has been signed during the summit that should enhance defence cooperation and ease the conduct of large-scale joint military exercises.
There is a technical Agreement on White Shipping Information Exchange.
Recently Australia and India conducted AUSINDEX,their largest bilateral naval exercise, and there are further developments on the anvil, including Australia’s permanent inclusion in the Malabar exercise with Japan.
In 2018, Indian Air Force participated for the first time in the Exercise Pitch Blackin Australia. The third edition of AUSTRAHIND(Special Forces of Army Exercise) was held in September 2018.
A broader maritime cooperation agreement with a focus on Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) is also in the works and Australia has agreed to post a Liaison Officer at the Indian Navy’s Information Fusion Centre – Indian Ocean Region (IFC-IOR) at Gurugram.
6.Education
Under the New-Colombo Plan of Australian government, 900 Australian undergraduates have studied and completed internships in India during the period 2015-16
7.Diaspora
The Indian community in Australia has the population of nearly half a million (2.1 % of the population), and another over 1,50,000 persons of Indian descent immigrated from other countries (Fiji, Malaysia, Kenya and South Africa).
India is one of the top sources of skilled immigrants to Australia.
8.Energy Cooperation
A Joint Working Group on Energy and Minerals was established in 1999 to expand bilateral relationship in the energy and resources sector. The 8th JWG meeting held in New Delhi in June 2013.
As energy is one of the central pillars of economic cooperation, both sides agreed during the visit of our Prime Minister to Australia in November 2014 to cooperate on transfer of clean coal technology and welcomed Australia’s desire to upgrade the Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad.
9. International cooperation
India and 62 other countries have backed a draft resolution led by Australia and the EU to ‘identify the zoonotic source’ of Covid-19 and its ‘route of introduction’ to humans.
Australia supports India’s candidature in an expanded UN Security Council.
Both India and Australia are members of the Commonwealth, IORA, ASEAN Regional Forum, Asia Pacific Partnership on Climate and Clean Development, and have participated in the East Asia Summits.
Australia is an important player in APEC and supports India’s membership of the organisation. In 2008, Australia became an Observer in SAARC.
Both countries have also been cooperating as members of the Five Interested Parties (FIP) in the WTO context.
An India Economic Strategy to 2035
In 2018, Australia’s Prime Minister has announced implementation of “An India Economic Strategy to 2035”, a vision document that will shape India-Australia bilateral ties.
It is based on three-pillar strategy- Economic ties, Geostrategic Engagement and Rethinking Culture-thrust on soft power diplomacy.
The focus of this report is on building a sustainable long-term India economic strategy.
The report identifies 10 sectors and 10 states in an evolving Indian market where Australia has competitive advantages, and where it should focus its efforts. These are divided into a flagship sector (education), three lead sectors (agribusiness, resources, and tourism) and six promising sectors (energy, health, financial services, infrastructure, sport, science and innovation).
Significance of the Relations
Australia is one of the few countries that has managed to combat COVID-19 so far through “controlled adaptation” by which the coronavirus has been suppressed to very low levels. Two of the leaders of this great Australia-wide effort are Indian-born scientists.
From farming practices through food processing, supply and distribution to consumers, the Australian agribusiness sector has the research and development (R&D) capacity, experience and technical knowledge to help India’s food industry improve supply chain productivity and sustainability and meet the challenges of shifting consumption patterns.
Australia is the 13th largest economy in the world, following closely behind Russia which stands at $1.6 trillion.
Australia is rich in natural resources that India’s growing economy needs.
It also has huge reservoirs of strength in higher education, scientific and technological research.
The dominance of Indo-Pacific countries in India’s trade profile: Fostering deeper integration between India and Australia will provide the necessary impetus to the immense growth potential of the trade blocs in this region.
The two countries also have increasingly common military platforms as India’s defence purchases from the U.S. continue to grow.
Australia has deep economic, political and security connections with the ASEAN and a strategic partnership with one of the leading non-aligned nations, Indonesia. Both nations can leverage their equation with ASEAN to contain China.
The Indo-Pacific region has the potential to facilitate connectivity and trade between India and Australia.
Being geographically more proximate than the US or Japan, India and Australia can emerge as leading forces for the Quad.
Associated Issues
Trade deficit: India’s trade deficit with Australia has been increasing since 2001-02 due to India-Australia Free Trade Agreement. It is also a contentious issue in the ongoing RCEP negotiations which India left.
India’s desire for visa reforms in Australia, which would permit more Indian workers to seek employment in Australia, remains unmet. India wants greater free movement and relaxed visa norms for its IT professionals, on which Australia is reluctant. Australia and India are yet to nurture a common bilateral ground to figure out the basis of their cooperation.
The formation of the Japan–America–India (JAI) partnership at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires in 2018 is cause for Australian concern. India’s unwillingness to invite Australia to participate in the Malabar naval exercise, despite Australian lobbying, has sparked speculation over the fate of the Quadrilateral Consultative Dialogue (the ‘Quad) involving India, Australia, Japan and the United States.
Building consensus on non-nuclear proliferation and disarmament has been a major hurdle given India’s status as a nuclear power. Trade and maritime security on the other hand seem the most viable points of collaboration. Although a defence agreement was signed in 2014, the defence relationship has yet to develop fully.
Although security has received a lot of significance in the relationship, in practice Australia-India defence cooperation remains relatively undeveloped. There are a considerable number of defence and security dialogues between the two countries, but none has been translated into more substantive cooperation.
Increasing Racist attacks on Indians in Australia has been a major issue. The relationship was further strained over the attacks on Indian students studying in Melbourne, and the resulting media coverage caused serious damage to Australia’s standing in India.
Need of the Hour
Upgradation of 2+2 talks. In addition, it may be prudent too for New Delhi and Canberra to elevate the ‘two plus two’ format for talks from the Secretary level to the level of Foreign and Defence Ministers.
Utilising current innovations in digital trade; such digitisation of economic activities has changed the landscape of trade, enhancing associations between economies and, in particular, South-South flows.
Removal of trade barriers would lead to an increase in the exports of these commodities, although the increasing number of disputes at the WTO with regard to the Australian sector can act as a serious impediment.
India and Australia have a strong track record of collaborating in research and innovation. The $84 million Australia-India Strategic Research Fund (AISRF) is Australia’s largest. The Australian Government’s $1.1 billion National Innovation and Science Agenda presents new opportunities to engage with India. The agenda resonates well with India’s ‘Start-up India’ and ‘Make in India’ campaign.
It is evident in policy areas such as maritime security, climate change, energy security, law enforcement, governance and the politics of security institutions.
Engaging Indonesia, Japan, France and Britain for securing Indo-Pacific
An ‘engage and balance’ China strategy is the best alternative to the dead end of containment. The role of the US is of particular importance as it has recently been a driver of efforts towards bringing similarly aligned states in counterbalancing China.
Conclusion
Their ties are extremely important for the Indo-Pacific region which is in flux. They stand out for their solemn commitment towards democratic values, international peace, rule of law, development and multiculturalism.a
In an ongoing case, the Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties asked the Supreme Court to issue guidelines to regulate media briefings by the police to ensure fair trial.
This has left the judiciary with no choice but to deliberate on binding directives to the police.
What is Media Trial?
Media Trial is when various newspapers, magazines, television channels, social media websites interpret facts of a particular case and present them in front of the general public.
In India, we have witnessed media trials in many cases where before the verdict of the Indian judiciary, the media channels frame an accused in such a manner that the general public believes him/her to be the person guilty of such offence.
Media Trial is not prohibited in India, but it influences the views and opinions of the general public as well as judges and lawyers.
Issue of media trial
[A] For Police
(1) Investigation fouling
In criminal cases that attract the most sensationalist media coverage, media attention is often drawn toward investigation and early trial stages.
This makes the police a crucial source for the media and communication between the two institutions is often a starting point of the troubles of media trials.
(2) Unregulated divulgence of case details
Leakage of information by police force and disproportionate reliance on this information by the media results in a public stripping of the rights that typically accompany a fair trial.
(3) Blow to procedural justice
Most police departments do not have dedicated media cells, making officials of all levels authoritative sources of information and blurring the boundaries between an official and informal police account of events.
As a result, the evidence-based narrative of criminal cases presented by the police to a court varies significantly from the account provided to the news media.
This is detrimental for the persons involved in the case, and the justice system as a whole.
[B] For Judiciary
(1) Violation of the rights of litigants
Reportage of this nature violates the presumption of innocence and the right to dignity and the privacy of suspects, the accused, victims, witnesses and persons closely related to them.
They often face social ostracization and difficulties in retaining employment, making them vulnerable to crime and exploitation.
(2)Disharmony
Police narratives are sometimes designed to achieve political goals, and the media’s ready acceptance of these narratives does little to prevent their insidious effects.
Given the media’s ability to shape political opinion, law enforcement agencies are sometimes under pressure to selectively reveal certain facets of the investigation or to mischaracterise incidents as communal or systemic.
What should be the role of Media?
Contextualization: Problematic news coverage of criminal cases arises when reporters absolve themselves of any duty to contextualise information revealed by the police.
Verification of the facts: Media ethics extend beyond verification of facts to check its Authencity.
Create public awareness: Apart from making sure that police narratives are accurate before making them public, reporters bear the burden of translating the significance of police versions in a criminal trial.
Prevent mistrust in institutions: It is meant to protect, and contributes considerably to the public apprehension and mistrust in the system.
Why is news media being hyperactive?
We should remember that the new media as an institution is NOT a not-for-profit organization.
The negligence can be attributed to the changing nature of the newsroom, responding to deadlines externally set by competing social media accounts that now qualify as news.
Court directives and legal provisions
Ans: The Romila Thapar vs Union of India, (2018) Case
Courts have repeatedly directed law enforcement authorities not to reveal details of their investigations, especially the personal details of the accused, before trial is complete.
It calls for states to enact their own laws based upon social construct.
The Ministry of Home Affairs issued office memorandum outlining a media policy over a decade ago, but this is of limited value given that ‘Police’ is an entry in the State List and thus falls primarily within the jurisdiction of State governments.
Way forward
Uniform regulation: Government regulation is not uniform for print and television media and enforcement of these regulations, where it occurs, is slow.
Prevent overt regulation: In any event, Government regulation of the media is problematic and likely to increase politicization of the press.
Strengthening self-regulation: Self-regulation set-ups such as the National Broadcasting Standards Authority and Indian Broadcasting Foundation are membership-based and easily avoided by simply withdrawing from the group.
Reconcile the public faith: It is now in the immediate interest of the media and the general interest of free press, that media institutions look inward to find an answer to what is essentially an ethical crisis.
Conclusion
The media’s immense power to shape narratives regarding public conceptions of justice makes it a close associate of the justice system, bringing with it a responsibility to uphold the basic principles of our justice system.
The media should feel subject to the obligation to do its part in aiding mechanisms that aim to preserve these principles.
Recently, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant order, clarifying that the right to a medical abortion that was available to married women could not be denied to unmarried women.
Background of the case
The SC’s order granting permission to undergo an abortion was passed in the case of a petitioner who was in a consensual relationship, and whose partner deserted her.
The Delhi High Court had denied the petitioner’s right to terminate her pregnancy.
Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003, lays down the categories of women who are eligible for termination of pregnancy up to 24 weeks:
Survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest; minors; where there is a change of marital status during the ongoing pregnancy (widowhood and divorce); women with physical and mental disabilities, women with pregnancies in humanitarian settings; foetal “malformations” that have a substantial risk of being incompatible with life, or which, if the child is born, may cause it to suffer from a serious physical or mental handicap.
The High Court found that the petitioner had not undergone a “change in marital status”.
The SC found that prima facie, the High Court had been too restrictive in its approach, and that the term “change in marital status” should be given a purposive interpretation.
Three key judgments
The Supreme Court in this casebased this finding on the 2021 Amendment to the MTP Act, which no longer restricts itself to an unwanted pregnancy between a “husband” and “wife”, but to a woman and her “partner”, by marriage or not.
The Court relied on three key judgements:
1] The 2010 S Khushboo case, which recognised the legality of live-in relationships and pre-marital sex.
2] The 2009 Suchita Srivastava case, which recognised that a woman’s right to make reproductive choices is part of the “personal liberty” guaranteed under Article 21.
3] The 2017 K S Puttaswamy case, which reaffirmed that women’s right to bodily integrity is part of the fundamental right to privacy.
The Court observed: The statute has recognised the reproductive choice of a woman and her bodily integrity and autonomy.
Contrast with rights in the US: The SC’s order attains significance in contrast to the recent Dobbs decision in the US.
Constitutional rights are interconnected: Unravel one and the entire edifice of protections could fall apart.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court offers hope that right to abortion won’t be restricted by a woman’s marital status.
India has termed Gaza violence as grave concern and called for immediate resumption of talk between Israel and Palestine.
Here we explain the roots of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the two-state solution and why it has not materialized.
What is the Israel-Palestine conflict?
The land to which Jews and Palestinians lay claim to was under the Ottoman Empire and then the British Empire in early 20th century.
Palestinian people —the Arab people from the same area— want to have a state by the name of Palestine in that area.
The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is over who gets what land and how it’s controlled.
Jews fleeing the persecution in Europe at the time wanted to establish a Jewish state on the land which they believe to be their ancient homeland.
The Arab at the time resisted, saying the land was theirs.
The land at the time was called Palestine.
In 1917’s Balfour Declaration, the United Kingdom declared its support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.
Arabs resisted it which led to violence.
When did the migration begin?
Some 75,000 Jews migrated to Palestine from1922-26 and some 60,000 Jews emigrated in 1935, according to a history published by the University of Central Arkansas.
It adds that Palestinian Arabs demanded the UK to halt Jewish emigration, but the UK ignored such calls. There were violent incidents, leading to deaths of some 500 people.
In 1923, the British Mandate for Palestine came into effect.
The document was issued by the League of Nations, the failed predecessor of the United Nations (UN).
The Mandate gave the UK the responsibility for creating a Jewish national homeland in the region.
In 1936, the UK government, recommended the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states.
Issue at the UN
In 1947, Britain referred the issue of Palestine to the UN, which came up with a partition plan.
It put up two proposals. One, two separate states joined economically —the majority proposal— and, two, a single bi-national state made up of autonomous Jewish and Palestinian areas, the minority proposal.
The Jewish community approved of the first of these proposals, while the Arabs opposed them both.
Israel declares independence
In May 1948, Israel declared its independence.
The Arab countries of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt invaded the newly-declared country immediately.
When the war ended, Israel gained some territory formerly granted to Palestinian Arabs under the UN resolution in 1947.
It also retained control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank respectively.
The two-state solution and why it hasn’t worked out
The two-state solution refers to an arrangement where Israeli and Palestinian states co-exist in the region.
However, such a solution has not materialised over the decades.
As outlined in the beginning and in the briefly explained roots of the conflict, the two-state solution means two separate states for Israelis and Palestinians.
There are four main reasons why the two-state solution has not materialized by now:
[1] Borders
There is no consensus as to how to draw the lines dividing the two proposed states.
Many people say borders should have pre-1967 lines.
In 1967 Israeli-Arab war, Israel captured Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, Old City of Jerusalem, and Golan Heights.
Israel is not willing to give up these gains. It returned Sinai to Egypt in 1982.
Moreover, there is the question of Israeli settlements in West Bank.
[2] Question of Jerusalem
Both Israel and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital and call it central to their religion and culture.
The two-state solution typically calls for dividing it into an Israeli West and a Palestinian East, but it is not easy to draw the line — Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy sites are on top of one another.
Israel has declared Jerusalem its ‘undivided capital’, effectively annexing its eastern half, and has built up construction that entrenches Israeli control of the city.
[3] Refugees
A large number of Palestinians had to flee in the 1948 War.
They and their descendants —numbering at 5 million— demand a right to return. Israel rejects this.
The return of these people would end the demographic majority of Jews, ending the idea of Israel that’s both democratic and Jewish.
[4] Security
Security concerns are also central to Israel as it’s constantly harassed by terrorist group Hamas that controls Gaza Strip.
Hamas and other Islamist group in Gaza launch rockets into Israel time-to-time.
Moreover, there are also concerns of Palestinians’ attack inside Israel.
This year in March-April, at least 18 Israelis were killed in Palestinian attacks inside Israel.
A total of 27 Palestinians were also killed in the period, including those who carried out attacks inside Israel. Palestinians too have their concerns.
For Palestinians, security means an end to foreign military occupation.
Why the two-state solution is needed?
Besides fulfilling the basic desire of both Jews and Arabs of their own states, supporters of two-state solutions say it must be backed because its alternatives are simply not workable.
A single state merging Israel, West Bank, and Gaza would reduce Jews to a minority.
At the same time, in such a state, Jews would be a significant minority which would mean that the Arab majority would be miffed.
Moral reasoning too for a two-state solution
It says that the aspirations of one person should not be overridden for others’ aspirations.
It’s a struggle for collective rights between two distinct groups of people.
Jews are the global micro-minority with a very small piece of land to exist.
Depriving Israeli Jews of a Jewish state or Palestinians of a Palestinian state would represent a subordination of one group’s aspirations to someone else’s vision.
Way forward
India opines that long-term peace in Israel and Palestine can be achieved only through a negotiated two-State solution leading.
This can be done with the establishment of a sovereign, independent and viable State of Palestine living within secure and recognized borders.
The government has tabled the Electricity (Amendment) Bill 2022 in the Lok Sabha. This has drawn huge protests across the country, in states like Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Rajasthan, and others.
Electricity (Amendment) Bill
This Bill amends the Electricity Act, 2003. The Act regulates the electricity sector in India.
It sets up the Central and State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (CERC and SERCs) to regulate inter-state and intra-state matters, respectively.
Key provisions under the Bill are:
Multiple discoms in the same area: The Act provides for multiple distribution licensees (discoms) to operate in the same area of supply. The Bill removes this requirement. It adds that a discom must provide non-discriminatory open access to its network to all other discoms operating in the same area, on payment of certain charges.
Power procurement and tariff: Upon grant of multiple licenses for the same area, the power and associated costs as per the existing power purchase agreements (PPAs) of the existing discoms will be shared between all discoms.
Cross-subsidy Balancing Fund: The Bill adds that upon grant of multiple licenses for the same area, the state government will set up a Cross-subsidy Balancing Fund. Cross-subsidy refers to the arrangement of one consumer category subsidising the consumption of another consumer category. Any surplus with a distribution licensee on account of cross-subsidy will be deposited into the fund.
Rules of Centre: The Bill specifies that the above matters related to the operation of multiple discoms in the same area will be regulated in accordance with the rules made by the central government under the Act.
License for distribution in multiple states: As per the Bill, the CERC will grant licenses for distribution of electricity in more than one state.
Payment security: The Bill provides that electricity will not be scheduled or despatched if adequate payment security is not provided by the discom. The central government may prescribe rules regarding payment security.
Contract enforcement: The Bill empowers the CERC and SERCs to adjudicate disputes related to the performance of contracts. These refer to contracts related to the sale, purchase, or transmission of electricity. Further, the Commissions will have powers of a Civil Court.
Renewable purchase obligation: The Act empowers SERCs to specify renewable purchase obligations (RPO) for discoms. RPO refers to the mandate to procure a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources. The Bill adds that RPO should not be below a minimum percentage prescribed by the central government. Failure to meet RPO will be punishable with a penalty between 25 paise and 50 paise per kilowatt of the shortfall.
Selection committee for SERCs: Under the Act, the Chairperson of the Central Electricity Authority or the Chairperson of the CERC is one of the members of the selection committee to recommend appointments to the SERCs. Under the Bill, instead of this person, the central government will nominate a member to the selection committee. The nominee should not be below the rank of Additional Secretary to the central government.
Other key provisions
Tariff Ceilings: The Bill makes provision for “mandatory” fixing of minimum as well as maximum tariff ceilings by the “appropriate commission” to avoid predatory pricing by power distribution companies and to protect consumers.
Tariff revisions: The amendment has several provisions to ensure graded and timely tariff revisions that will help provide state power utilities enough cash to be able to make timely payments to power producers. This move is aimed at addressing the recurrent problem of default by distribution companies in payment to generation companies.
Payment security mechanism: The bill through amendments in Section 166 of the Act also seeks to strengthen payment security mechanisms and give more powers to regulators. It has become necessary to strengthen the regulatory mechanism, adjudicatory mechanism in the Act and to bring administrative reforms through improved corporate governance of distribution licensees.
Why is it being opposed?
Provisions of the Bill are being opposed by a number of opposition-ruled states.
It is being termed anti-federal in spirit.
Power as a subject comes under the Concurrent List and it was the “the bounden duty or the mandatory obligation” of the Centre to consult the states.
Criticisms
If passed in its current form it will lead to a major loss for government distribution companies, eventually helping to establish the monopoly of a few private companies in the country’s power sector.
By bringing in more retailers or distribution licensees, the quality of service or price is not going to be any different.
How will these amendments help?
Power freebie: The Bill comes at a time when there is a debate around freebies being offered by political parties.
Discom crisis: Various state power distribution companies (Discoms) have not been able to raise enough resources to make timely payments to power generating companies.
Empowering discoms: Empowering the regulator to be able to take calls on tariff revision and ensuring that the government freebies, even on electricity, should be through direct benefit transfer.
Two countries will commemorate next year the 75th anniversary of the signing in New Delhi of the 1948 Treaty of Friendship.
Cooperation between two countries in various area
Switzerland and Indian partners are collaborating on digital transformation, sustainability, health, life sciences, medtech, infrastructure, cleantech, fintech, blockchain, AI and robotics.
Innovation and investment continue to be the primary drivers of our bilateral relations.
With over 330 Swiss companies, Switzerland is the 12th largest investor in India.
About 100 Swiss companies manufacture locally and support the Make in India initiative.
Trade talks between Switzerland (European Free Trade Association EFTA) and India are high on the priority list.
Digitalisation is emerging as a relatively new area of engagement with enormous potential for Switzerland and India.
Switzerland plays a leading role in researching new technologies and is home to many innovative and world-leading technology companies.
As one of the most innovative countries of the world, Switzerland seeks to engage with India, the leader of the Industry 4.0 revolution, in areas ranging from digital governance to digital self-determination.
Switzerland in UNSC as non-permanent member
Switzerland was elected to the United Nations Security Council as a non-permanent member for the first time this year in June.
Convergence in priorities at Security Council: There are convergences in Swiss and Indian priorities at the UN Security Council.
Switzerland, like India, is committed to a robust and effective multilateral system.
In the Security Council, Switzerland will do everything possible to ensure sustainable peace.
Many years ago, from 1971 to 1976, Switzerland represented India’s interests in Pakistan and vice versa.
In the Security Council, Switzerland will focus on the protection of civilians and on international humanitarian law.
Impact of climate change on security: Switzerland will also address climate change and its impact on security.
Reforms of Security Council: Switzerland desires effective UN institutions.
India has been advocating for a reform of the Security Council.
Switzerland’s fourth priority in 2023 and 2024 will be to contribute to improving the United Nations Security Council’s effectiveness towards greater transparency and accountability.
Conclusion
Two countries can together contribute to global good. This engagement is a result of not only our shared priorities, but also our shared democratic values and foreign policy independence.
The inability of Parliament to transact any business and the lack of serious deliberation must be a matter of grave concern for all.
Purpose of deliberative democracy
In a deliberative democracy, Parliament works as a special purpose vehicle for the legislative scrutiny of bills, grievance redressal and debate on policies and related governance issues.
Its failure to transact business is a sad commentary on three aspects — Members of Parliament, the presiding officers as well as the rules and regulations that define the functioning of both Houses.
How disruption affects Member of Parliaments
For any parliamentarian, it is extremely disappointing to be unable to speak in the House for which he or she has — in most cases —given notice and come prepared.
And when this happens too often, their enthusiasm decreases.
Impact on quality of debate: In such a situation, members are often tempted to make a popular intervention than a substantive one.
This certainly impacts the quality of debates negatively.
Challenges for presiding officer
For the presiding officers too, preventing disruptions is a serious challenge.
Perhaps presiding officers can emulate the courts of law.
Use of in-camera proceedings: Like in courts, the presiding officers need to consider conducting in-camera proceedings in their chambers to insulate at least the Zero Hour and Question Hour from getting washed out.
While the House remains force-adjourned, presiding officers can order in-camera hearing of questions of MPs and replies of ministers.
Zero Hour submissions could also be dealt with similarly.
Some tweaking of existing rules and regulations may facilitate this.
Issues with media coverage of Parliamentary proceedings
In any polity, systems work effectively when wrongdoers are punished and rule-abiding people are rewarded.
What happens currently is exactly the opposite, especially in the context of coverage of parliamentary proceedings in mainstream media.
The space allocated for parliamentary proceedings in both, print and electronic media is shrinking fast.
Rarely does one finds adequate coverage of Question Hour or Zero Hour compared to the past.
Debates on bills are also subject to brief and sketchy reporting.
Although disruptions have become common, they continue to get reported without fail and disruptors often bask in the media limelight.
As against this, those who make a reasonably good speech — well argued and supported by statistics, examples or case studies — rarely get adequate attention.
This too hampers the interest of parliamentarians.
It is high time we rise above the temptations of this tendency and think seriously about systemic reforms.
Conclusion
As the Parliament of independent India enters the eighth decade of its history and prepares to enter a new, more well-equipped and modern Parliament House, it is the right time to think about how we can add value to our deliberative democracy.
On this day 80 years ago — on August 9, 1942 — the people of India launched the decisive final phase of the struggle for independence through the Quit India Movement.
Quit India Movement
It was a mass upsurge against colonial rule on a scale not seen earlier, and it sent out the unmistakable message that the sun was about to set on the British Empire in India.
Mahatma Gandhi, who had told the Raj to “Quit India” on the previous day (August 8) was already in jail along with the entire Congress leadership.
So when August 9 dawned, the people were on their own — out on the street, driven by the Mahatma’s call of “Do or Die”.
This truly people-led movement was eventually crushed violently by the British, but by then it was clear that nothing short of their final departure was acceptable to India’s masses.
The slogan ‘Quit India’
While Gandhi gave the clarion call of Quit India, the slogan was coined by Yusuf Meherally, a socialist and trade unionist who also served as Mayor of Bombay.
A few years ago, in 1928, it was Meherally who had coined the slogan “Simon Go Back”.
Build-up to August 1942
Failure of Cripps Mission: While factors leading to such a movement had been building up, matters came to a head with the failure of the Cripps Mission. With WW2 raging, the beleaguered British government needed the cooperation of its colonial subjects. With this in mind, in March 1942, a mission led by Sir Stafford Cripps arrived in India to meet leaders of the Congress and the Muslim League.
Betrayal on WW2 Promises: The idea was to secure India’s whole-hearted support in the war, and the return offer to Indians was the promise of self-governance. But things did not go that way.
No complete freedom: Despite the promise of “the earliest possible realisation of self-government in India”, Cripps only offered dominion status, not freedom.
Unviable partition plan: Also, there was a provision for the partition of India, which was not acceptable to the Congress.
Gandhiji’s departure from non-violent struggle
The failure of the Cripps Mission made Gandhi realise that freedom would come only if Indians fought tooth and nail for it.
The Congress was initially reluctant to launch a movement that could hamper Britain’s efforts to defeat the fascist forces. But it eventually decided on mass civil disobedience.
At the Working Committee meeting in Wardha in July 1942, it was decided the time had come for the movement to move into an active phase.
Gandhi’s address: Do or Die
On August 8, 1942, Gandhi addressed the people in the Gowalia Tank maidan in Bombay (Mumbai). “Here is a mantra, a short one that I give you.
Imprint it on your hearts, so that in every breath you give expression to it,” he said.
“The mantra is: ‘Do or Die’. We shall either free India or die trying; we shall not live to see the perpetuation of our slavery,” Gandhi said.
Aruna Asaf Ali hoisted the Tricolour on the ground. The Quit India movement had been officially announced.
The government cracked down immediately, and by August 9, Gandhi and all other senior Congress leaders had been jailed.
Gandhi was taken to the Aga Khan Palace in Poona (Pune), and later to Yerwada jail. It was during this time that Kasturba Gandhi died at the Aga Khan Palace.
Course of events
(1) People vs. the Raj
The arrest of their leaders failed to deter the masses.
With no one to give directions, people took the movement into their own hands.
In Bombay, Poona, and Ahmedabad, hundreds of thousands of ordinary Indians clashed with the police.
The following day (August 10), protests erupted in Delhi, UP, and Bihar.
There were strikes, demonstrations and people’s marches in defiance of prohibitory orders in Kanpur, Patna, Varanasi, and Allahabad.
The protests spread rapidly into smaller towns and villages.
Till mid-September, police stations, courts, post offices, and other symbols of government authority came under repeated attack.
(2) Working class involvement
Railway tracks were blocked, students went on strike in schools and colleges across India, and distributed illegal nationalist literature.
Mill and factory workers in Bombay, Ahmedabad, Poona, Ahmednagar, and Jamshedpur stayed away for weeks.
(3) Violent phase
Bridges were blown up, telegraph wires were cut, and railway lines were taken apart.
Outcome: Brutal suppression
The Quit India movement was violently suppressed by the British — people were shot and lathi-charged, villages were burnt, and backbreaking fines were imposed.
In the five months up to December 1942, an estimated 60,000 people had been thrown into jail.
However, though the movement was quelled, it changed the character of the Indian freedom struggle, with the masses rising up to demand with a passion and intensity like never before.
Try this PYQ:
Q. Quit India Movement was launched in response to:
A mother and father should have equal rights as guardians of their children and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (HMGA), 1956 should be amended as it discriminates against women, a parliamentary panel has recommended in its report.
Why in news now?
The said Act does NOT provide for joint guardianship.
NOR does it recognise the mother as the guardian of the minor legitimate child unless the father is deceased or is found unfit.
The Act gives preference to father over mother.
Thus it goes against the right to equality and right against discrimination envisaged under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
What is Guardianship?
A guardian is a person appointed to look after another person or his property in India, as per the personal laws of the religion into which the minor was born.
He or she takes on the responsibility of caring for and protecting the person for whom he or she has been appointed guardian.
On behalf of the ward’s person and property, the guardian makes all legal decisions.
Guardianship under the Hindu law
The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, regulates guardianship of minor children in Hindu law (covers Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists in India).
A minor is described as anyone under the age of eighteen, according to Section 4(a) of the Act.
A guardian, according to Section 4(b) of the Act, is an individual who is responsible for the child’s care, property, or both.
The various forms of guardianship in India include:
Natural guardian: Only three people are considered natural guardians, according to Section 6 of the 1956 Act: the mother, father, and husband.
Testamentary guardian: A testamentary guardian is a guardian appointed in a will by the natural guardian. A father has the testamentary right to appoint a guardian for his legitimate children or property or both. If the mother is alive after the father’s death, she will be the guardian of the children, and the fathers will be restored only if the mother dies without appointing a guardian.
Guardian appointed by the court: The court can appoint a guardian to a child under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 who would be called a certified guardian. The powers of the certified guardian are also stated in the Act. The Act confers power to district courts.
De facto guardian: A de facto guardian is someone who has consistently shown an interest in caring for, handling, or managing the infant, his or her property, or both. A de facto guardian is not a legal guardian, and therefore, has no legal authority over the child or the child’s property, but he has assumed responsibility for the child and the property.
Guardians by affinity: The guardianship of a minor widow by a relative within the degree of sapinda (generation of ancestors) is known as affinity guardianship.
Guardianship under Muslim law
The law of guardianship in Muslims came from certain verses in the religious texts.
Natural guardian: The only father is considered the natural guardian of a child under Muslim law, and the mother is not considered a natural or other guardian even after the father’s death.
Testamentary guardian: The term wali, guardian, amin, or kaim-mukam refers to a testamentary guardian.
Guardian appointed by the court: When natural and testamentary guardians fail, the court has the right to appoint a guardian for the child. The Guardians and Wards Act of 1890 governs the appointment of a guardian for a child from any group.
