As Indian economy recovers from the economic disruption caused by the pandemic, there are dangers of rising inequality and cosequently the rising inflation. The article deals with these issues.
3 features of Indian recovery
1) The number of new cases has fallen while the fatality rate continues to drop.
2) India has rolled out one of the smallest fiscal support packages globally, with central government spending flat so far this year.
3) Inflation is now a big problem, with consumer prices above the 6 per cent tolerance level for the past eight months.
Consequences of low fiscal spending
It may seem that India is back on the path to recovery.
But the low level of fiscal spending could leave behind other problems, such as rising inequality.
Although, in India there was a focus on vulnerable section, there were some misses, such as the urban poor being left out, and the overall outlay was small.
For instance, demand for the rural employment guarantee programme continues to outstrip supply.
There is the rise in inequality between large and small firms, which is likely to be felt by individual employees.
Large firms were helped by cost-cutting, low interest rates, access to buoyant capital markets and increased spending in the formal economy probably helped.
The smaller listed firms did not do as well.
Small firms are more labour intensive than large firms.
If small firms do poorly, it impacts a large number of people.
All this could impact demand over time.
Rising inequality could stoke inflation (in services particular).
Consumption patterns show that the rich in India tend to consume more services than the poor.
And rising inequality could, therefore, stoke inflation.
Possibility of services inflation
1) As a vaccine comes into play, there could be a release of pent-up demand for high-touch services.
2) As large firms and their employees do relatively well, they are likely to demand more services, stoking prices.
3) Many service providers did not do a regular annual price reset in 2020, so they may raise prices to cover the two years once demand picks up.
If inflation does become persistent and leads to tighter monetary policy, that could weigh on growth over time.
Way forward
To control inflation in 2021, the RBI may have to take steps such as:-
1) Gradually drain the excess liquidity in the banking sector,
2) Provide a floor for short-term rates, which have fallen below the reverse repo rate.
3) Narrow the policy rate corridor by raising the reverse repo rate.
A quicker exit from loose monetary policy could become another area where India differs from the world.
Consider the question “What are the consequences of economic recovery in the wake of pandemic? Suggest the ways to deal with these consquences.”
Conclusion
Putting all of this together, it seems India will come full circle in 2021. For a while it was worried more about weak growth than high inflation. But as growth recovers, inflationary concerns could reappear.
As the farmers of Punjab and Haryana are protesting on the Delhi border against 3 farmer bills by the Centre, the topic becomes important for upcoming mains. So, let us recap the burning issues article related to these 3 bills.
What are these ordinances?
The Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Ordinance, 2020;
The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Ordinance, 2020; and
The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (It is the Bill replacing the third that has been passed in Lok Sabha)
Let us study their key features:
(1) The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Ordinance, 2020
Trade of farmers’ produce: The Ordinance allows intra-state and inter-state trade of farmers’ produce outside: (i) the physical premises of market yards run by market committees formed under the state APMC Acts and (ii) other markets notified under the state APMC Acts. Such trade can be conducted in an ‘outside trade area’, i.e., any place of production, collection, and aggregation of farmers’ produce including (i) farm gates, (ii) factory premises, (iii) warehouses, (iv) silos, and (v) cold storages.
Electronic trading: The Ordinance permits the electronic trading of scheduled farmers’ produce (agricultural produce regulated under any state APMC Act) in the specified trade area. The following entities may establish and operate such platforms: (i) companies, partnership firms, or registered societies, having permanent account number under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or any other document notified by the central government, and (ii) a farmer producer organisation or agricultural cooperative society.
Market fee abolished: The Ordinance prohibits state governments from levying any market fee, cess or levy on farmers, traders, and electronic trading platforms for the trade of farmers’ produce conducted in an ‘outside trade area’.
(2) The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Ordinance, 2020
Farming agreement: The Ordinance provides for a farming agreement between a farmer and a buyer prior to the production or rearing of any farm produce. The minimum period of an agreement will be one crop season, or one production cycle of livestock. The maximum period is five years, unless the production cycle is more than five years.
Pricing of farming produce: The price of farming produce should be mentioned in the agreement. For prices subjected to variation, a guaranteed price for the produce and a clear reference for any additional amount above the guaranteed price must be specified in the agreement. Further, the process of price determination must be mentioned in the agreement.
Dispute Settlement: A farming agreement must provide for a conciliation Board as well as a conciliation process for settlement of disputes. If the dispute remains unresolved by the Board after thirty days, parties may approach the Sub-divisional Magistrate for resolution. Parties will have a right to appeal to an Appellate Authority (presided by collector or additional collector) against decisions of the Magistrate. Both the Magistrate and Appellate Authority will be required to dispose of a dispute within thirty days from the receipt of application. They may impose certain penalties on the party contravening the agreement.
(3) The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020
Regulation of food items: The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 empowers the central government to designate certain commodities (such as food items, fertilizers, and petroleum products) as essential commodities. The Ordinance provides that the central government may regulate the supply of certain food items including cereals, pulses, potatoes, onions, edible oilseeds, and oils, only under extraordinary circumstances. These include (i) war, (ii) famine, (iii) extraordinary price rise and (iv) natural calamity of grave nature.
Stock limit: The Ordinance requires that the imposition of any stock limit on agricultural produce must be based on price rise. A stock limit may be imposed only if there is: (i) a 100% increase in the retail price of horticultural produce; and (ii) a 50% increase in the retail price of non-perishable agricultural food items.
A Backgrounder: Long awaited APMC reforms
Agricultural markets in India are mainly regulated by state Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) laws. APMCs were set up with the objective of ensuring fair trade between buyers and sellers for effective price discovery of farmers’ produce.
APMCs can:
regulate the trade of farmers’ produce by providing licenses to buyers, commission agents, and private markets,
levy market fees or any other charges on such trade, and
provide necessary infrastructure within their markets to facilitate the trade
Issues with the APMCs
The Standing Committee on Agriculture (2018-19) identified some issues includes: (i) most APMCs have a limited number of traders operating, which leads to cartelization and reduces competition, and (ii) undue deductions in the form of commission charges and market fees.
Traders, commission agents, and other functionaries organise themselves into associations, which do not allow easy entry of new persons into market yards, stifling competition.
The Acts are highly restrictive in promotion of multiple channels of marketing (such as more buyers, private markets, direct sale to businesses and retail consumers, and online transactions) and competition in the system.
During 2017-18, the central government released the model APMC and contract farming Acts to allow restriction-free trade of farmers’ produce, promote competition through multiple marketing channels, and promote farming under pre-agreed contracts.
Why were the ordinances promulgated?
The Ordinances collectively seek to-
facilitate barrier-free trade of farmers’ produce outside the markets notified under the various state APMC laws
define a framework for contract farming and
impose stock limits on agricultural produce only if there is a sharp increase in retail prices
The three Ordinances together aim to increase opportunities for farmers to enter long term sale contracts, increase the availability of buyers, and permits buyers to purchase farm produce in bulk.
Causes of nationwide dissent
(1) No consultation with stakeholders
The attempt to pass the Bills without proper consultation adds to the mistrust among various stakeholders including State governments.
The ruling government could have waited for the Parliament session, held discussions with all political parties before arriving at a decision.
Farmer organisations see these Bills as an attempt to weaken the APMCs and eventual withdrawal of the Minimum Support Prices (MSP).
(2) Issue over trade and MSP guarantee
While farmers are protesting against all three ordinances, their objections are mostly against the provisions of the first.
Their concerns are mainly about sections relating to “trade area”, “trader”, “dispute resolution” and “market fee” in the first ordinance.
In effect, existing mandis established under APMC Acts have been excluded from the definition of trade area under the new legislation.
According to the ordinance, any trader with a PAN card can buy the farmers’ produce in the trade area.
In the present mandi system, arhatiyas (commission agents) have to get a licence to trade in a mandi.
Critics view the dismantling of the monopoly of the APMCs as a sign of ending the assured procurement of food grains at minimum support prices (MSP). To the Centre’s ‘one nation, one market’ call, critics have sought ‘one nation, one MSP’.
(3) Legacy concerns
The Bills gives no assurance to the poor, small and marginal farmers of India (constituting over 85 per cent of India’s farmers) of protection of their interests, their livelihoods, and their future.
Critics argue that such legislation will let the farmers falling into the clutches of the monopolistic big corporates.
Lofty recommendations have been made several times in the past, including by the Swaminathan Committee, which suggested the removal of the mandi tax, creation of a single market and facilitating contract farming
However, no efforts have taken place for implementing these basic reforms over the years.
(4) Fear of food insecurity
Punjab CM, on the easing of regulation of food items, said, it would lead to exporters, processors and traders hoarding farm produce during the harvest season, when prices are generally lower, and releasing it later when prices increase.
This could undermine food security since the States would have no information about the availability of stocks within the State.
(5) Constitutional issues raised
Since agriculture and markets are State subjects – entry 14 and 28 respectively in List II – the ordinances are being seen as a direct encroachment upon the functions of the States and against the spirit of cooperative federalism enshrined in the Constitution.
The Centre, however, argued that trade and commerce in food items is part of the concurrent list, thus giving it constitutional propriety.
The bills invite valid opposition: one, infraction of the states’ right to decide on intra-state commerce in agriculture, and two, officer-led dispute settlement outside the ambit of judicial review.
What are the promising features of these bills?
The new legislations would create an ecosystem where farmers and traders would enjoy the freedom of choice in the sale and purchase of agri-produce.
It would also promote barrier-free interstate or intrastate trade and commerce outside the physical premises of markets notified under the state agricultural produce marketing legislations.
The bills would also open up more choices for farmers, reduce marketing costs and help them in getting better prices.
At the same time, it would also help farmers of regions with surplus produce to get better prices and consumers of regions with shortages, lower prices.
The bill has also proposed an Electronic Trading Transaction Platform to ensure seamless electronic trade and the farmers will not be charged any cess or levy for sale of their products under this Act.
Interestingly, the bill aims for ‘One India, One Agriculture Market’ and also creates additional trading opportunities outside the APMC market yards to help farmers get remunerative prices due to the additional competition.
The new laws are not shutting down APMC mandis, nor are they implying that MSPs will not be functional.
This would supplement the existing Minimum Support Price (MSP) procurement system, which also provides a stable income to farmers.
Still, why are the farmers fuming?
There has been bipartisan consensus over the last two decades or so—both the UPA and the NDA governments have tried and failed to convince state governments to reform APMC Acts, notwithstanding periodic manifesto promises and model APMC Acts.
They failed with all approaches, trying to link financial support to agriculture based on reforms. The present crisis created the perfect window to usher in these transformative reforms.
People on both sides of the divide are saturated with such reformative measures and have arrived at the commonsensical benefits that would be ushered in as well as the risks.
What lies ahead
Accelerating research and academic excellence can bring in the ‘best in class’ technologies and can multiply farmers’ incomes.
As far as the commission agents are concerned, the governments should work on a clear roadmap to modernize them by facilitating them in providing value-added services. They could be leveraged to set-up grading and sorting, warehousing, cold chains and food processing infrastructure. This way, it is a win-win-win for the state government, farmers and the commission agents.
Soil health improvement and water conservation measures should be the top priority for the governments to enhance farm productivity.
Similarly, by diversifying into high-value crops such as vegetables and fruit, India could become the food- processing hub for the world. Farmers have to be made part of the entrepreneurial ecosystem (FaME—Farmers as Micro-Entrepreneurs).
Conclusion
A lot of the success of these bills depends on trust and consensus. In the end, what will determine the results of this latest set of reforms will be their implementation.
There is genuine uncertainty over what private procurement will mean. Will it mean greater corporate power over farmers, possibly unhealthy monopolies or duopolies? Will they be harder to negotiate with than a state monopoly?
Leveraging the reforms and moving forward rather is the most feasible solution than to protest amid the pandemic.
What farmers need and are asking for is legally guaranteed remunerative prices. If the Bills are perceived of good intent, then the government should not shy away from a proper parliamentary scrutiny of all its details.
Political parties that are opposing these Bills should coordinate better keeping farmers’ interests in the forefront, and not their party politics.
In yet another tug-of-war between Kerala Governor and CM, the Governor has turned down a request to summon a special sitting of the Assembly to debate the new three central farm laws.
Q.The political nature of the office of the Governor, especially in Opposition-ruled states, has been underlined in several instances by courts. Discuss.
Governor and Assembly Session
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…” says Article 174 of the Constitution.
The provision also puts on the Governor the responsibility of ensuring that the House is summoned at least once every six months.
Although it is the Governor’s prerogative to summon the House, according to Article 163, the Governor is required to act on the “aid and advice” of the Cabinet.
So when the Governor summons the House under Article 174, this is not of his or her own will but on the aid and advice of the Cabinet.
Can the Governor refuse the aid and advice of the Cabinet?
There are a few instances where the Governor can summon the House despite the refusal of the Chief Minister who heads the Cabinet.
When the CM appears to have lost the majority and the legislative members of the House propose a no-confidence motion against the CM, then the Governor can decide on his or her own on summoning the House.
But the actions of the Governor, when using his discretionary powers can be challenged in court.
Precursors set by the Supreme Court
A number of rulings by the Supreme Court have settled the position that the Governor cannot refuse the request of a Cabinet that enjoys the majority in the House unless it is patently unconstitutional.
The latest in the line of rulings is the landmark 2016 Constitution Bench ruling in which the Supreme Court looked into the constitutional crisis in Arunachal Pradesh.
The Governor had imposed President’s Rule in the state of Arunachal.
In ordinary circumstances during the period when the CM enjoy the confidence of the majority, the power vested under Article 174 must be exercised with the aid and advice of the CM and his CoM.
In the above situation, he/she has precluded [from taking] an individual call on the issue at his own will, or in his own discretion, the verdict said.
The court read: the power to summon the House as a “function” of the Governor and not a “power” he enjoys.
What Sarkaria Commission had said?
The Sarkaria Commission of 1983, reviewed the arrangements between the Centre and the states, had said that so long as the CoM enjoys the confidence of the Assembly, its advice in these matters, unless patently unconstitutional must be deemed as binding on the Governor.
It is only where such advice if acted upon, would lead to an infringement of a constitutional provision if the CoM has ceased to enjoy the confidence of the Assembly.
What happens if the Kerala government insists on holding the special session?
Since the Governor’s powers are limited with regard to summoning the House, there can be no legal ground to deny a request for summoning the session.
In such a political row, the Governor’s refusal can also be challenged in court.
Union Home Minister has said that Inner-Line Permit (ILP) had been the Centre’s biggest gift to Manipur since its statehood.
Note the states where ILP is required.
The Inner Line
A concept drawn by colonial rulers, the Inner Line separated the tribal-populated hill areas in the Northeast from the plains.
To enter and stay for any period in these areas, Indian citizens from other areas need an Inner Line Permit (ILP).
Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Mizoram are protected by the Inner Line, and lately, Manipur was added (in December last year).
The concept originates from the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation Act (BEFR), 1873.
Its’ Inception
The policy of exclusion first came about as a response to the reckless expansion of British entrepreneurs into new lands which threatened British political relations with the hill tribes.
The BEFR prohibits an outsider’s — “British subject or foreign citizen” — entry into the are beyond the Inner Line without a pass and his purchase of land there.
On the other hand, the Inner Line also protects the commercial interests of the British from the tribal communities.
After Independence, the Indian government replaced “British subjects” with “Citizen of India”.
Today, the main aim of the ILP system is to prevent settlement of other Indian nationals in the States where the ILP regime is prevalent, in order to protect the indigenous/tribal population.
December 26 was the birth anniversary of freedom fighter Udham Singh, who is known for avenging the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919.
Try this PYQ:
Q.The Ghadr (Ghadar) was a –
(a) Revolutionary association of Indians with headquarters at San Francisco.
(b) Nationalist organization operating from Singapore
(c) Militant organization with headquarters at Berlin
(d) Communist movement for India’s freedom with head-quarters at Tashkent
Who was Udham Singh?
Singh, born in Sunam in Punjab’s Sangrur district in 1899, was a political activist who got associated with the Ghadar Party while in the US.
The multi-ethnic party was believed to have communist tendencies and was founded by Sohan Singh Bhakna in 1913.
Headquartered in California, the party was committed to the ouster of the British from India.
In 1934, Singh made his way to London with the purpose of assassinating O’Dwyer, who in 1919 had been the Lieutenant Governor of Punjab.
Why did he consider O’Dwyer responsible for the massacre?
O’Dwyer ordered Brigadier Reginald Dyer to Amritsar before the massacre; he was worried that there might be a second Indian mutiny, given the Hindu-Muslim unity and the demonstrations and strikes.
Instead of Dyer, O’Dwyer is considered to be the actual perpetrator, since Dyer could not have executed it without his permission.
On March 13, 1940, Udham Singh shot O’Dwyer at a meeting of the East India Association and the Royal Central Asian Society at Caxton Hill.
He was immediately arrested and held in Brixton prison and was sentenced to death and was hanged on July 31, 1940, at Pentonville Prison.
A legend in India
For avenging the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, Singh is seen by many as a hero. Gandhi, though, had famously called Singh’s revenge as an “act of insanity”.
While being on trial, he referred to himself as Mohamed Singh Azad, to symbolize Hindu-Sikh-Muslim unity in the fight for India’s freedom.
In 1974, his remains were sent back to India and he was cremated in his village in Sunam.
There have been several demands in the past few years for Udham Singh’s statue to be installed in Jallianwala Bagh and the Parliament complex.
In 2018, his statue was installed at Jallianwala Bagh during Baisakhi.
Udham Singh Nagar district in Uttarakhand is named after the freedom fighter.
Botanists have discovered a new species of wild Sun Rose from the Eastern Ghats in India.
Try this PYQ from CSP 2018:
Q.Why is a plant called Prosopis juliflora often mentioned in the news?
(a) Its extract is widely used in cosmetics.
(b) It tends to reduce the biodiversity in the area in which it grows
(c) Its extract is used in the pesticides.
(d) None of the above
Portulaca Laljii
The new species named Portulaca laljii was discovered from the Prakasam district of Andhra Pradesh.
It has unique features such as a tuberous root, no hair in its leaf axils, a reddish-pink flower, prolate-shaped fruits, and copper brown seeds without luster.
Portulaca Laljii has been named to honor the contribution of Lal Ji Singh, an eminent botanist of the Botanical Survey of India.
The species has been placed under the ‘Data Deficient’ category of the IUCN List of Threatened Species because very little information is available about the population of the species.
Morphological features
These morphological features distinguish the species from other species of the genus Portulaca.
The flowers, which are reddish-pink in color, are very minute, at about 0.5mm.
The plant was found growing in rocky crevices at an altitude of about 1,800 meters above mean sea level, very close to the ground, at about less than 10 cm.
The plants belonging genus Portulaca are classified in the category Sun Rose because they flower in bright sunshine.
The genus was described by Linnaeus in 1753 as a type genus of the flowering plant family Portulacaceae.
The Prime Minister has launched Ayushman Bharat PM-JAY SEHAT to extend coverage to all residents of Jammu & Kashmir.
Q.Discuss various challenges in ensuring Universal Healthcare in India. (150W)
PM-JAY SEHAT
The full form of SEHAT is social, endeavor for health, and telemedicine. Under this scheme, the SEHAT card will be distributed to all the eligible beneficiaries.
All the eligible beneficiaries of Jammu and Kashmir can apply for the Scheme through common service center operators
Around 1 crore beneficiaries will cover under this scheme. All the eligible citizens of Jammu and Kashmir will get cashless treatment up to Rs 5 lakh under the Scheme.
The Supreme Court in recent judgement in Saurav Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh made it clear that reservation and merit are not mutually exclusive. The article deals with this issue.
Vertical Vs. Horizontal reservation
Articles 15(4) and 16(4) enable vertical reservation based on slotting the population in terms of SC, ST, OBC, and General Category.
But there is also a class of reservations that cuts across all these categories and are referred to as horizontal reservation.
Horizontal reservation includes a reservation for women differently-abled persons, freedom fighters, army veterans, etc.
Specifying the relationship between horizontal and vertical reservation
In cases like Anil Kumar Gupta v/s State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court had made it clear that horizontal reservation ought to be generally understood in compartmentalized terms: recognition of inequalities within each vertical category.
In a particular case, candidates were excluded from competing from the General Category positions even though they have scored more, simply because they were OBC.
However, some state governments are trying to use the open category seats as a quota for general category candidates.
The High Courts had been giving contrary directions: Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh excluded reserved category women for consideration in the general category.
Rajasthan and Gujarat, amongst others, included them.
The Supreme Court, in a three-judge bench, ruled against the UP government and clarified the relationship between horizontal and vertical reservations.
Analyzing the judgment
The judgments reiterate the principle that groups eligible for horizontal reservation cannot be excluded from the open category seats because they are from other vertically reserved category communities, like SC or OBC.
Women from all categories are eligible to be considered for the open category.
It also made it clear that the open category seats are not meant to be a quota for the non-reserved categories.
Merit Vs. Reservation
The Court has often contrasted merit with reservation.
But this has always been a mistaken view of the relationship between merit and reservation.
In principle, reservation is an instrument for identifying merit in individuals from historically marginalized communities.
The Court is saying that by excluding the adjustment of OBC women who had scored higher against general category seats, the UP government was ironically using the General Category to exclude meritorious candidates.
When the Court is using the term merit, it is simply pointing out that certain selection criteria are being used.
Such selection criteria are also within particular reserved categories: which is also a function of selection criteria, in this case, marks.
From this point of view, even those who advocate reservation do not fully give up on the meritocratic criteria of selection — they just apply it differentially.
What the Court was concerned with is fairness in the application of the selection criteria within the overall framework of reservation.
Conclusion
What the court is trying to say something more interesting: Members of the reserved category must be fully considered as falling under the rubric of being potentially meritorious.
Article 356 and the word ‘otherwise’ in it has led to the recent Andhra Pradesh High Court order. The order raises several questions. The article deal with this issue.
Controversial High Court order
Recently the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the Andhra Pradesh government to come prepared to argue on the ‘breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state’.
The order opens up the possibility of use or even misuse of Article 356 by the judiciary.
The Supreme Court of India has stayed the order.
However, we need to go deeper into this observation and look at the controversial provision of Article 356 due to which the High Court could make such an observation.
Historical background of the article
Both India and Pakistan borrowed this provision from the Government of India Act, 1935.
Interestingly, the leaders of our freedom struggle were so very opposed to this provision that they forced the British government to suspend it.
The provision which we had opposed during our freedom struggle was incorporated in the Constitution strangely in the name of democracy, federalism and stability.
It was agreed in the Constituent Assembly that the Governor could use this emergency power.
By this time the Governor was supposed to be elected by the people of the State rather than nominated by the Centre.
After several revisions, provision became Article 278 (now Article 356).
The issue with the word ‘otherwise’
H.V. Kamath criticised the word ‘otherwise’ and said only god knows what ‘otherwise’ means.
As the Governor had been made a nominee of the Centre by this time, he asked why the President could not have confidence in his own nominees.
‘Otherwise’ can include anything including a presidential dream of breakdown of constitutional machinery in a state.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court could pass such an order due to this very term ‘otherwise’.
This word negates the ideals of constitutionalism by giving unlimited powers to the Centre, also allowed the High Court to overstepped the line.
But this is not the first instance of judicial overreach on this issue.
On August 13, 1997, a Patna High Court had observed that the High Court could also report to the President about the breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State.
Repeated misuse of Article 356
In the very first invocation of Article 356 in 1951, central government removed the Gopi Chand Bhargava ministry in Punjab though he enjoyed the majority.
In 1959, it was used against the majority opposition government of the E.M.S. Namboodripad government in Kerala.
Indira Gandhi used Article 356 as many as 27 times.
The most notable case of non-use of Article 356 was the refusal of the P.V. Narasimha Rao government prior to the demolition of the Babri Masjid.
Consider the question “Examine the contest in which the word ‘otherwise’ in Article 356 leads to judiciary exercising its powers. What are the concerns in such case?”
Conclusion
Ideally, the word ‘otherwise’ should be deleted from Article 356 and the provision be used only sparingly and to never remove a majority government.
Do you think that India’s support for the Tibetan cause is the root cause of all irritants in India-China relations?
TPSA: A backgrounder
The TPSA is an amended version of the Tibet Policy Act of 2002, which came into existence during the Bush Administration.
The act once signed into law would make it the official policy of the US Government to oppose any effort by the govt. of the People’s Republic of China to select, educate, and venerate Tibetan Buddhist religious leaders in a manner inconsistent with Tibetan Buddhism.
The proposed legislation will empower the US Government to impose sanctions on China who might try to interfere in the process of selecting the next incarnation of the Dalai Lama.
US and China, today
US-China relations have become much more difficult over the last two decades, particularly worsening in the Trump Administration.
The matters range from the pandemic to trade tariffs and its cross-world coalition-building against Chinese superpower ambitions.
Earlier in the year, President Donald Trump signed into law the Hong Kong Autonomy Act.
Fuelled by TPSA
Adding much fuel to the issue, the TPSA introduces stronger provisions on Tibet, plus teeth in the form of a threat of sanctions, including travel bans on Chinese officials.
The Dalai Lama
Among the most significant amendments is that the TSPA makes it US policy to oppose attempts by Beijing to install its own Dalai Lama in a manner inconsistent with Tibetan Buddhism.
The legislation makes reference to the Chinese government’s ‘Measures on the Management of the Reincarnation of Living Buddhas’ in 2007.
China had earlier insisted that the reincarnation of living Buddhas including the Dalai Lama must comply with Chinese laws and regulations.
Other provisions of TPSA
The TPSA has introduced provisions aimed at protecting the environment of the Tibetan plateau, calling for greater international cooperation and greater involvement by Tibetans.
Alleging that China is diverting water resources from Tibet, the TPSA also calls for a regional framework on water security, or use existing frameworks… to facilitate cooperative agreements among all riparian nations.
While the 2002 Act said the US should establish a “branch office” in Lhasa, the TSPA ups the ante by changing that to a “consulate”.
It recognizes the Central Tibetan Administration, whose Prime Minister Lobsang Sangay takes credit for ensuring that the Senate took up the legislation for a vote.
Chinese response to TPSA
China had earlier said the TPSA severely breached international law and basic norms governing international relations, interfered in China’s internal affairs, and sent a wrong message to ‘Tibet independence’ forces”.
After the passage of the Bill through the Senate, China said it “resolutely opposes” the “adoption of Bills containing such ill contents on China.
India’s present stance on Tibet
If India is pleased with this latest US barb to China, it has not said so openly.
India has mostly refrained from playing the Tibet card against China, and like the US, has a one-China policy.
It was only this year, in the ongoing Ladakh standoff, that it used Special Forces made up almost entirely of Tibetan exiles to occupy strategic heights in Pangong Tso’s south bank.
